Comment by baxtr
8 hours ago
If multipolarity involves great powers sabotaging shared interests when convenient, how is it any different from the unipolar abuse being criticised?
8 hours ago
If multipolarity involves great powers sabotaging shared interests when convenient, how is it any different from the unipolar abuse being criticised?
The difference is that opposition brings balance. Any great power, unopposed, is bound to turn into tyranny sooner or later.
Opposition brings balance only among great powers, and only when they see each other as equals.
Institutions were meant to extend balance beyond great powers, to smaller states with no leverage.
So if those institutions are weakened or weaponized, who exactly benefits, and how does that improve the overall condition of humanity?
My view is that they never brought any balance. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Global institutions, especially NGOs, wrecked havoc. My view is that the nexus of power is guaranteed to be corrupt. Inescapably so. It's just a number's game; in any game/competition with many participants, the winners who rise to the top will always be in the category of "the cheaters who didn't get caught". Given enough power, they can use that power to cover up their tracks and craft narratives to make themselves look good and their opponents look bad. So there's nothing worse than centralization. Anything which centralizes power is bound to be corrupt and harmful.
1 reply →