My whole point was this “burning bridges” and general miasma around Trump’s foreign policy is the result of ideology and hysteria instead of hard nosed observation of facts.
Part of the "stature" involves how he publicly treats officials from other countries and how he presents himself to the world.
This is what led Angela Merkel (and other world leaders) to repeatedly denounce Trump. Theresa May almost laughed when Trump suggested that she sue the EU and it's by far not the most stupid thing he's said.
No president does 100% bad things, but the problem is that with every success that he does have, he can't articulate it well because 30% of his vocabulary solely consists of the word 'very'. His reading and speaking level are barely above middle school. The only reason he's resorted to doing unpredictable, mad dog politics is that he isn't capable of doing anything else -- not because it's a good method of politics these days.
Does that get you things like trade deals because no one knows how you'll react? Sure, at the cost of reputation down the line.
Some people didn't care that Trump called Jong-Un "rocketman" if it meant positive results. Others were horrified that Trump would ridicule a world leader in such a childish manner, even if it did lead to by far the best results of any president in the history of N. Korea/US relations.
As for trade, negotiations are obviously ongoing, but it's only been a few week, but certainly seems to be going in a good direction: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/25/17614564/trump-eu-trade-deal-j...
As for N. Korea, their latest peace negotiations have gone further than ever before. US soldier's remains have been returned, political prisoners were returned, the very first peace summit directly between a US president and a N. Korean leader, and end to missile and nuclear testing for going on a year. You can knock these, but it is hard to see how they aren't major achievements only belittled by ideology.
As for the middle-east why would we not count a strengthening of a coalition, just because it existed before? I pointed out that negotiations are being made when the parent would have you believe things were getting worse instead of working plan for better. They certainly aren't "burned bridges".
I didn't mention Syria for a reason. That is clearly lost to Assad and Russia. Not sure what Trump could have done differently except immediately pull out and cede the loss.
And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Europe had changed their energy policy, only after the NATO and trade summits, they have agreed to take US LNG in an effort to reduce their reliance on Russian nat-gas, and at least formally acknowledged their reliance is a bad thing.
Why didn't you ask the parent to source and explain their statements? What did they state which was obvious?