Widespread suffering alone doesn't trigger a revolution. Historically, successful uprisings require a politically savvy, well-organized group with a clear agenda and influential leadership. Disparate and unorganized populations, no matter how desperate, tend to see their energy dissipate without causing systemic change.

Authoritarian leaders like Hugo Chavez systematically dismantle democracy from within after winning elections. They replace competent individuals in the military and government with those who are absolutely loyal, destroying meritocracy to ensure the state apparatus serves the regime, not the people.

Authoritarian leaders who publicly mock or dismiss threats risk triggering a military response driven by personal pride. Venezuelan President Maduro's televised dancing was reportedly perceived by the Trump administration as calling their bluff, demonstrating how avoiding the appearance of being a 'chump' can become a primary motivator for military action.

A potential invasion of Taiwan by China is less likely due to internal military purges and dissent than to US military posturing. An authoritarian leader like Xi Jinping cannot launch a complex invasion if he doesn't trust his own generals, making domestic instability a powerful, albeit unintentional, deterrent.

Putin's history shows a reliable pattern: he appears cooperative and makes agreements, only to later act in his own self-interest. To predict his moves in conflicts like the Ukraine war, one must analyze this long-term behavioral pattern rather than his current statements or gestures.

To predict a leader's actions, disregard their words and even individual actions. Instead, focus on their consistent, long-term pattern of behavior. For Putin, the pattern is using negotiations as a stalling tactic to advance a fixed agenda, making him an unreliable partner for peace deals based on stated intentions.

The U.S. political landscape is increasingly adopting authoritarian rhetoric and tendencies. However, this shift comes without any of the supposed upsides of authoritarianism, such as hyper-efficient infrastructure or public order. The result is a dysfunctional "authoritarianism without the good stuff."

Directly attacking a charismatic leader can backfire due to personal loyalty. A more effective political strategy is to target their key advisors. Removing controversial figures can weaken the leader's power structure, as it is easier to build consensus against "bad actors" than the principal.

Systems built on violence and coercion, such as authoritarian rule or forced taxation, are fundamentally unstable. They incentivize participants to constantly seek ways to escape, betray, or overthrow the system, creating a repeating cycle of conflict rather than sustainable social coherence.