Well yea, it's obvious, but that doesn't mean the effect on victims is any different. Why would it cost him anything, no matter the outcome? Why should citizens care what it cost him? The USA isn't "his". All it has cost the US, is the faith of the ROW that we are a reliable business partner that can be trusted to stand by them thru thick and thin. Whatever he wanted to negotiate, and whatever tactic he wanted to take, he could have done with a private phone call and not embarrassed anyone.
Think of this in business terms, since we are discussing the effect on Ineos as a business. Canada, Mexico, their citizens and their companies used to look at the US as a preferred vendor. All other things being equal, or in fact skewed towards a country like China, they chose business with us, because they trusted our commitment to our word and law. Now, we are just a bully that they know as a senior partner will abuse the position if given, and he did it on the world stage for all to see for his ego.
When people and organizations only do what they have to, to survive, and not what they want to, to thrive, is when you've lost them, and you never win them back. Ever. International businesses don't dump billions into plants in places that exhibit arbitrary and capricious behavior that could bankrupt the effort on a whim. Do you really think any international businesses watching this clown show didn't look at their exposure? How about domestic businesses that export? They now have to consider pushing production OUTSIDE the US to limit exposure in a trade war and since when have our CEO's been bashful about that? Just look at history. A democratic India took the tack of heavy tariffs to foreign investment and forced partnership with FERA regulations to get companies to invest in their market, and communist China swung the doors open to free trade and investment, and look who developed first.