In a sense that’s true for any country, though. The only differences are (1) how often the policy changes and (2) by how much. US used to have a 4-year cycle and much less variance in the policies and so it made some sense to get into long-term agreements. Even in the last 8 years, agreements reached by Trump were continued by Biden (e.g. NAFTA). Now though the cycle is like 4 days and the policy swings are 180°, so it only makes sense to enter into extremely short-term, transactional agreements, or if you have no other choice (like Ukraine).
That’s demonstrably false. Take China as an example where there is a stable political system, a single party in charge, and decisions are made across decades.
I’d argue that goes for any US president. Even if they’re completely genuine, everything can change on a dime when the next admin comes into power.
In a sense that’s true for any country, though. The only differences are (1) how often the policy changes and (2) by how much. US used to have a 4-year cycle and much less variance in the policies and so it made some sense to get into long-term agreements. Even in the last 8 years, agreements reached by Trump were continued by Biden (e.g. NAFTA). Now though the cycle is like 4 days and the policy swings are 180°, so it only makes sense to enter into extremely short-term, transactional agreements, or if you have no other choice (like Ukraine).
That’s demonstrably false. Take China as an example where there is a stable political system, a single party in charge, and decisions are made across decades.