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.

PGIM's Daleep Singh argues that the risk of mutually assured destruction prevents direct military conflict between nuclear powers. This channels confrontation into the economic sphere, using tools like sanctions and trade policy as primary weapons of statecraft.

Officials in Ukraine's state nuclear energy company were recorded planning to skimp on protecting the energy grid from Russian missile strikes. They prioritized pocketing millions in kickbacks over national security, leading to devastating consequences when unprotected locations were later hit.

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.

The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) relies on the threat of retaliation. However, once an enemy's nuclear missiles are in the air, that threat has failed. Sam Harris argues that launching a counter-strike at that point serves no strategic purpose and is a morally insane act of mass murder.

Facing a potential second Trump presidency, Canada is seriously discussing drastic national security changes. Options include developing nuclear capabilities and adopting a Finnish-style "whole society defense" model to make any potential US aggression too costly to be worthwhile. This reflects a fundamental shift in how Canada views its southern neighbor.

Russia's provocations are designed to create dilemmas for European nations, forcing them to question whether the US would support a kinetic response. This uncertainty weakens the transatlantic alliance and strengthens Russia's psychological position for future negotiations over Ukraine and European security.

The West's decline in military resolve, moral authority (e.g., the Iraq War), and overall focus created a power vacuum. Adversaries perceived this weakness as an opportunity to act on long-held ambitions, viewing it as a moment to "test the waters" with minimal consequences from a weakened West.

The recent uptick in global conflicts, from Ukraine to the Caribbean, is not a series of isolated events. It's a direct result of adversaries perceiving American weakness and acting on the historical principle that nations expand their influence until they are met with sufficient counter-force.