"War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Carl_von_Clausewitz
I think what we're seeing is a president who is at odds with the intelligence and diplomatic communities. It's truly testing the ideas of who's actually in charge.
The president assumes since he was elected and runs the executive branch that he has the final say on what will be done, and will go "off-script" in direct communications with other leaders to forward his agenda. The diplomats/intelligence have long-established precedents and procedures and want everyone, including the president, to not rock their boat.
When they are unable to work together, you will see these inconsistent decisions being made.
The problem is this President does not take into account the knowledge and capabilities of his intelligence and diplomatic communities, leading to stupid and naive decisions because the other heads of state are better informed and are better negotiators than him.
The intelligence and diplomatic communities are resources at his disposal he often chooses to ignore, so his screw ups are squarely his own with no one else to blame.
Praising him doesn't mean he likes him or he'll make of him his friend. It's more of a respect thing. He respects the man for working on the interest of his country.
Does Hitler really not belong on a list like that? So would Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt, of course - but I don't think greatness requires goodness.
Or from popular culture:
> “The wand chooses the wizard, remember … I think we must expect great things from you, Mr Potter … After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things – terrible, yes, but great.” - Ollivander
> In Japan, honne are a person's true feelings and desires (本音 hon'ne, "true sound"), and tatemae are the behavior and opinions one displays in public (建前 tatemae, "built in front", "façade").
But if all you have is trump saying "good strong leader", then you don't have much. Show actions not words.
Chinese economy is definitely struggling. I don't buy the argument that the trade wars do not work. They hurt both sides. Question is who does it hurt more?
It feels like you haven't thought of it in a game theoretic perspective. In the classical prisoner paradox, the two prisoners gain the most by collaboration. But if one of the prisoner shows no good faith collaboration, it might be necessary for the other prisoner to also stop putting their faith in the uncollaborative one.
The TPP set up an alliance between all of the players in that region and explicitly left out China in order to give that group negotiation power over China. But nuanced policy debate is dead in America so let's use the tool that fucks us all.
The worst part about the trade deal is the harm on our agricultural sector, but I guess at least they voted for their own demise.
Misrepresenting him as "willing to sever that codependent relationship" is harmful. He's just as complicit if not more than most politicians, and most of his actions involving China have been inconsistent and self-serving.