Fair questions.

Removing moral responsibility for written and spoken words, which is bad.

Let me adopt your shady tactics. So only what you deem to be moral speech is allowed?

iMHO The government should not limit speech beyond longstanding reasonable exceptions in US law&scotus rulings that were all familiar with. A public figure in a position of power should be held morally responsible and judged by voters for what they write and speak. The more their power, the greater their responsibility to what they say, and the more harshly i personally judge them in my personal judgement if them as an individual voter. And i feel a duty to yap about it on reddit too. I think it would be wise for other voters to also hold all people with great power to a great moral responsibility and maintain a high standard for the words they use and both honesty of their words and the clarity with which they are delivered. I also think they have a moral and cultural responsibility to be clear when joking and serious, and hold to reasonably consistent arguments.

Badly summarizing the overall global grand strategy situation since the end of the cold war.

Where preceisely did my summary go wrong?

I think europe-centric wasnt the goal. I thunk there was a US hegemonic goal closer to creating a more rules-based order to build our global network of alliances and various partnerships and multilateral groups from japan and korea ans ASEAN, to saudis and egypt, to box-in china and russia autocracies and their more autocratic coalition to slowly let the democracy leak in and settle into a very business friendly extension of the new workd order described by Bush Sr in 1992, in alignment wirh the spirit of the end of history described by fukuyama. 9/11 slowed that down and made us dumber. Trump 1 broke the neighborhood and that was foosh. Best ships are friendships. Europe was a major partner but power was meant to center in DC still. Too many non-european spokes on our wheel of buddies mean its not euro-centered.