"negotiations"

damn hold that L then nazi atlantic treaty organization

When they say "makes negotiations harder" they're saying it from the position of "getting what we want out of the negotiations is harder" rather than from a neutral position. It's strictly one sided, negotiations are a means towards the US advancing its position. Everything is always a different means of the US advancing its position, the US has never contemplated not trying to "win", not trying to create a monopoly out of the entire world. To capitalists countries are companies and the progression of companies is consolidation into monopoly. That's what the nato camp ultimately is, a consolidation of 32 previously independent countries into 1. It continues to "expand" because it is ultimately trying to consolidate the entire planet into a monopoly. This is just how everything works when everything you look at is a market.

.. that's literally the point, NATO. Wtf is wrong with you>:(

It's almost a given that post-cold war Americans are unable to negotiate from level playing field or when they are at a disadvantage. If they feel like they can't squeeze the other party without themselves getting burned they will just keep flinging shit however impotently. It's really something to do with geography. USA has two oceans to the east and to the west and to the north and south relatively weak subordinate states. Leadership feels no pressure to set the world on fire if it benefits them, they themselves live on an island and will always be more or less be isolated from any chaos. As long as US sits on enough global economic choke points and retains a superpower status they don't have to keep any promises either. They only thing that can threaten this model are nukes reaching US mainland, alternatives to dollar or domestic uprisings.

Basing foreign policy on what megalomaniac won a popularity contest makes negotations harder.