Blah. The premise is that Xi and the CCP are basically popular globally and the US has become isolated for its strong rhetorical response. Say what you want of that response but those just aren't true. A solid majority of world GDP is now anti-Xi as just an empirical fact. They were even more anti-Trump but oh yea he's not in charge anymore, and Xi will be until 2050 or so. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/

We might be upset about that (as the author appears to be, and it's understandable, Singapore is in a tough spot between the western and eastern blocs), but this "the US exclusively is responsible for this and needs to look at what it's done" attitude is like 10-15 years out of date by now. Not that interesting.

The Kissinger stuff is interesting, he's always cagey but basically seems to be saying the US needs to accept the fact that China will be a major power, while also doing all it can to ensure the independence and technological prowess of itself and its allies. Fair enough. But as always with Kissinger, his focus seems to me to be too much on "telling the other (stupid) foreign policy how elites how dumb they're being so I can be the smart, big picture contrarian" rather than "here's what we should do." And in satisfying his own intellectual vanity, he enervates those who believe a stronger response is needed. I don't think he's helping.