The reality of power is morally ugly, necessitating strategic alliances with monstrous figures, like the US partnering with Stalin to defeat Hitler. This isn't an aberration but a core function of geopolitics: using a lesser evil to combat a greater, more immediate threat.

The gap between the West's stated ideals and its actions, while hypocritical, gave weaker nations leverage to demand better behavior. The abandonment of this moral pretense creates a more dangerous, amoral world governed purely by might, where there is no longer a standard to appeal to.

World leaders operate based on practical interests that ensure their power, not on fixed alliances or static moral stances. A leader might prefer peace, but if the shifting landscape of incentives makes war the more viable path to maintaining power, they will pursue it.

Alex Karp dismisses the idea of a purely law-based international system as theoretical. He argues that in the real world, global stability and the ability to set the rules are determined by decisive military superiority. For the West, this power is the only thing that guarantees its influence against rivals like China and Russia.

In global conflicts, a nation's power dictates its actions and outcomes, not moral righteousness. History shows powerful nations, like the U.S. using nuclear weapons, operate beyond conventional moral constraints, making an understanding of power dynamics more critical than moralizing.

In geopolitical analysis, considering an opponent's perspective—like why Iran's leaders can't show weakness—is often wrongly labeled as sympathizing. This strategic empathy is vital for predicting actions, as adversaries act based on their own values and pressures, not ours.

Holding out for morally perfect leaders is naive and paralyzing. The reality of geopolitics is a "knife fight" where leaders inevitably make decisions that result in death. Progress requires working with these flawed individuals rather than disengaging over past actions.

In the brutal calculus of international relations, projecting weakness does not garner sympathy or aid; it invites contempt and aggression from stronger powers. This Machiavellian principle suggests that survival and sovereignty depend on maintaining a posture of undeniable strength, as adversaries will exploit any vulnerability.

The last 80 years of a rules-based international order was an exception, not the norm. The world is reverting to its historical state of raw power politics, where nations act out of self-interest and military strength.