You're right to be skeptical of "boogeyman" narratives. The baseline should be that US administrations can be flawed on their own merits.
The problem is that the "flawed" hypothesis fails to explain the specific vector of these anomalies. This isn't random incompetence; it's a persistent, multi-year pattern of actions that consistently align with the strategic goals of a single US adversary.
This pattern required him to systematically fire or purge officials who represented traditional US security policy (Mattis, McMaster, Bolton, Tillerson) and replace them with those who would enact this new vector (Vance, Kellogg).
The "ordinary incompetence" model must be able to explain the following data points, not as isolated gaffes, but as a cohesive pattern where his actions were in direct opposition to bipartisan congressional consensus and the US national security establishment:
Publicly inviting Russian interference ("Russia, if you're listening...").
Campaign chair (Manafort) providing internal polling data and strategy to a known Russian intelligence agent (Kilimnik).
Actively pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow deal during the campaign while lying to the public about it.
Softening the 2016 GOP platform to remove "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine.
Publicly siding with Putin in Helsinki over the entire US intelligence community.
Disclosing highly-classified, "code-word" intelligence from a key ally to the Russian FM and Ambassador in the Oval Office.
Illegally withholding $391M in congressionally-mandated military aid from Ukraine to extort a political investigation.
Waging a tariff war against allies (EU, Canada), creating a transatlantic rift that primarily benefited Moscow.
Unilaterally withdrawing from the INF and Open Skies Treaties, key arms-control pacts that constrained Russia, against the advice of allies and security officials.
Publicly stating he would "encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to any NATO ally he deems "delinquent."
Dangling the prospect of critical Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, only to publicly snatch the offer away immediately after a phone call with Putin.
Pausing vital US intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a move that directly aided Russia's successful offensive in the Kursk region and retaking it.
Publicly demanding that Ukraine "cut up" its territory and "stop at the battle lines," an act that validates Russia's invasion.
Consistently laundering Kremlin disinformation from the White House itself (e.g., CrowdStrike, "biolabs," "Nazis" in Kyiv).
One or two of these is a blunder. A list this long (and incomplete), spanning campaign, business, diplomacy, intelligence, and military policy, where every single item provides a direct, tangible benefit to the Kremlin, is a data cluster that requires a better explanation.
The choice isn't "great vs. not great." It's "random incompetence" vs. a coherent, multi-year vector of pro-Moscow actions that required a complete hostile takeover of his own party and the executive branch.