The US is facing severe internal crises. It's weakening the country's ability to conduct a consistent foreign policy.
(I'm deliberately not saying what the crises are, because there is pitched disagreement about that. The point is that no matter what, infighting is hampering foreign policy.)
Again, the point in this context is that no matter what the crises are, the foreign influence of the US is in decline because of severe domestic distractions.
I agree that much of the domestic chaos is a distraction, and that the U.S. should be focusing on longer term existential issues that affect the whole world, but I wish more people realized how much of the distraction and chaos is intentional.
It's difficult to keep your eyes on the road when someone just tossed a beehive into the car.
Should it? Many US citizens believe that the country is at risk of betraying its fundamental values and becoming something they cannot countenance. Resolving our differences will be hard.
Foreign instigators are poking an existing wound. They may be aggravating the injury, but they didn't create it.
There's no question that the long term interests of the US would be served by staying vigorously engaged in foreign affairs, including in the Ukraine. But does the US have the capability to do so when it is so riven, internally?
One side is having Open calls to remove the police. Let men take over woman’s sports. Decriminalize theft. Oh and attempting to bring back segregation. Disagree with any of that and you get labeled a far right lunatic.
> As an exercise, could you articulate a sympathetic reading of a different perspective, to the extent that someone who holds that perspective would approve of your rendering? Think of it as following Sun Tzu's advice to know your adversary.