That makes sense to me, and it's also the impression I got from watching this interview with Vladimir Putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pJd6O_NT0 https:

That makes sense to me, and it's also the impression I got from watching this interview with Vladimir Putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pJd6O_NT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pJd6O_NT0 I don't think Putin is fully honest, but ignoring what he says doesn't seem like a good idea either, and I found the interview fairly enlightening. I think an important clue here is that all the authoritarian regimes (Russia, Belarus, China, Iran, North Korea, etc.) seem much more likely to form alliances with one another even in the absence of an obvious shared national interest. An interesting case study may be the recent secular coup attempt in Turkey. Secular values are closer to western values, and according to this editorial in Turkish state news, when given the chance to come out in favor of democracy and political stability (by opposing the coup) or western values (by not opposing it), Europe chose the latter https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/opinion-the-july-15-coup-has-dented-the-eu-reputation/1534105 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/opinion-the-july-15-coup-h... Basically I see the modern geopolitical divide as being countries focused on human rights and secular western values on the one hand (US and its allies) and countries focused on stability on the other hand (Russia/China and friends). Both positions have some merit in my view. For example, I think Putin makes a good point that the US screwed up in Libya--we were aiming to achieve human rights but we ended up just destabilizing the region. IMO there has to be a balance between both human rights and stability considerations. Chomsky is fighting the last war when he talks about US actions in past decades in South America. Back then the global divide was capitalism vs communism. Now it's about human rights vs stability IMO.