Sure it is, since my argument for weakening of international institutions is that the USA did not lead by example. My analysis of russisn motives was pretty mu

Sure it is, since my argument for weakening of international institutions is that the USA did not lead by example. My analysis of russisn motives was pretty much “they did what they did because the USA prooved that they were an expansionist empire, with the goal of extending their influence on the world by expanding their area of influence without compromising ideologically“ I hold the USA to a highest standard, first because they have the means to lead, and second because they have extracted enough value from the world that a bit of compromising is just fair. But even though I feel that the USA are expected to be better than the rest, they never deceive in being much worse than anybody else: military interventions, lies, wars, political medling, ... everything goes. The UN is indeed a joke, and the USA is mainly to blame. You are happy about it, and I think it's just a pitty. What do you expect the world to look like in 200 years? Do you really buy that nonsense about perfectly isolated national identities, hapily trading with each other? How do you solve “tragedy of the commons“ kind of problems, without a supranational authority strong enough to force solutions on members? Or is the market fairy working for you there too? Global problems must be solved by compromise.