That is a long story, and i am in no way trying to imply that i have settled on that viewpoint and never expect to change. To shorten the narrative and save mys

That is a long story, and i am in no way trying to imply that i have settled on that viewpoint and never expect to change. To shorten the narrative and save myself from bird hops/rabbit trails, i believe that an objective assessment of combined human history shows that if a nation/entity has decided that they are justified in using violence then all entities involved must act accordingly. This appears to create a punctuated equilibrium of peace and violence. Given the state of the planet at this moment in terms of geopolitics, combined with the size of the population and the growing probability of global climate shift, i see know better human construct for governance than a strong, centralized authority bound by principle and precedent with the capability to do tragic evil for the sake of long term good. To put it another way, i am one of those historians* that feels that dark ages, unlike Rome, can be built in a day. I am horrified of a history recounting that the brightest minds plunged the world into oblivion so that everybody's opinion could be registered every time a decision needs to get made. This is a temporary position given the constraints of our reality. Certain technologies and other cataclysms could make my assessment bullshit. I guess I just think Putin is better equipped to deal with global disaster than any of the democratically elected leaders of the so called West. Xi is somewhat in the same position, but their population, in terms of both density and total, is a severe limiting factor. I'd love to discuss this at length in a less showy forum or format if you would be so inclined, but the tl;dr is i think Democracy is like high heels: they may look good but they are usually worthless shoes.