The central idea from the UN's creation is that avoiding another total war, especially in a nuclear age, should be the ultimate priority. Engaging in transactional geopolitics and managing great power tensions without this core focus significantly increases the risk of a catastrophic global conflict.

The post-WWII global framework, including international law, was a fragile agreement primarily enforced by the US. Its erosion is leading to a "might makes right" reality where nations like Russia, China, and the US act unilaterally in their perceived self-interest, abandoning the pretense of shared rules.

The current global disarray is often misdiagnosed. The system truly at risk is the deeper, 80-year-old framework created post-WWII to prevent great power war. This is a more profound rupture than the fraying of the 30-year-old, US-led post-Cold War order.

The current era of multipolarity, global economic integration, and tensions between rising and incumbent powers (like China and the US) is more analogous to the early 20th century before WWI than the bipolar Cold War. This historical parallel carries stark warnings about the potential for conflict.

For generations, Western societies have viewed peace and prosperity as the default state. This perception is a historical outlier, making the return to 'dog eat dog' great power politics seem shocking, when in fact it's a reversion to the historical norm of conflict.

The shift away from a unipolar world is not a managed process. It's a chaotic reorganization driven by conflicts over essential resources like energy. Nations are forced to abandon old allegiances and form new, pragmatic alliances to protect their core interests.

The proximity to WWII created a powerful sense of restraint among world leaders in the 1960s. Today, that lived memory is gone. The absence of a deep, culturally ingrained fear of total war has eroded the political will for peace, making the world more dangerous.

Europe's journey from global conqueror to self-destructive continent in the World Wars left a collective trauma. This history makes it deeply hesitant to embrace the centralized power and nationalist will necessary to become a superpower, a mindset the US doesn't share.

A dominant system, like the Soviet Union, doesn't simply die; it collapses when its people can envision and transition to a viable alternative (e.g., the US model). The current US-led order faces multiple potential successors—crypto, China's centralized model—which accelerates its potential decline.