I. Introduction: The Noise Before the Narratives Harden
We seem to be entering one of those historical moments when events arrive faster than our ability to interpret them. Gaza, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria – each crisis with its own history, its own moral texture – are already being folded into sweeping claims about American power, Western hypocrisy, or the return of great‑power politics. The commentary grows shrill before the facts are even clear. And in the rush to explain everything, people stop thinking.
There is a line from a book on the prelude to the First World War that has stayed with me: a historian showed the converging lines of military expenditure leading up to 1914, and then remarked, “This is what happens when people don’t stop to think.” It feels uncomfortably relevant now.
II. Venezuela: Illegitimacy at Home Does Not Create Legitimacy Abroad
It may well be the case – indeed, it seems likely – that Nicolás Maduro’s recent election lacked democratic legitimacy. But even if that is true, it does not follow that another state acquires the right to intervene militarily or to “correct” the situation by force.
Sovereignty is not a reward for good behaviour. If it were, the international system would collapse into chaos. Every powerful state would claim a moral mandate to intervene wherever it disapproved of the local government. The principle exists precisely to prevent that.
A bad government does not make foreign intervention good.
III. The Fog of Motives: Oil, Drugs, Regime Change, Distraction
Speculation about American motives is inevitable. Some say it is about drugs. Others say oil. Others see a familiar pattern of regime change. Still others suspect a domestic political distraction – hardly unprecedented in history.
Any of these may contain a grain of truth. None of them, on their own, explain the full picture. And even if the motives are mixed or opportunistic, that does not make the policy coherent, legal, or wise.
Motives matter, but they cannot substitute for analysis.
IV. Realism and Its Limits: The Melian Dialogue Revisited
Realists will say that states simply pursue their interests, dressing their actions in whatever moral language is convenient. There is some descriptive truth in that. But realism explains behaviour; it does not justify it.
The famous line from Thucydides – “the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must” – is often quoted as if it were a law of nature. But the Melian Dialogue is not a celebration of power politics. It is a tragedy. It shows what happens when power becomes the only argument left.
To treat it as a template rather than a warning is to misread the entire point.
V. The Temptation of False Equivalence
Already we hear the refrain: “America is no better or worse than Russia,” “all great powers are the same,” “this is just another Ukraine.”
This is not analysis. It is moral flattening.
Two actions are not identical simply because they both involve a powerful state acting abroad. Legality, territorial aims, civilian impact, and international response all matter. Without distinctions, we are not comparing – we are collapsing.
Cynicism is not clarity.
VI. The Drift Back to Spheres of Influence
There is a growing sense that the world is sliding back toward nineteenth‑century habits: gunboat diplomacy, spheres of influence, the casual treatment of smaller states as bargaining chips. The Monroe Doctrine, long dormant, seems to be stirring again.
But to describe this drift is not to accept it. The entire post‑1945 order – however imperfectly realised – was built on the idea that sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of aggressive war were worth defending. If we abandon those norms, we return to a world where power alone decides.
And history shows where that leads.
VII. The Crisis of Thought: Rhetoric, Emotion, and Overwhelm
When events come in waves, people reach for the comfort of simple stories. Rhetoric replaces analysis. Collective emotion replaces judgement. The world feels overwhelming, and so people give up even attempting a diagnosis.
But this is precisely when thinking is most needed.
If we care about the people caught in these crises – in Venezuela, Gaza, Iran, Nigeria, Ukraine – we cannot afford to treat their situations as interchangeable. Each has its own causes, its own stakes, its own moral demands.
To think clearly is not a luxury. It is a responsibility.
VIII. The Tragic Dimension: Acting in a World of Imperfect Knowledge
I have spent much of my life reading about the origins of wars, and if there is one lesson that emerges from all those studies, it is that no single pattern explains them. Some begin in fear, others in miscalculation, others in domestic pressures, others in the slow accretion of decisions made by people who believed they had no choice. The chains of causality are always more tangled than the slogans that follow.
For ordinary individuals, this complexity can feel paralysing. We watch decisions made far above our heads, by people we cannot influence, in systems we barely understand. And because the world is so interconnected, guilt and responsibility are rarely cleanly assigned. Everything bleeds into everything else.
But none of this complexity absolves us of the responsibility to think. If anything, it makes the need for clarity more urgent. International politics exposes the tragic dimension of the human condition: we must act, often on the basis of limited or distorted information, and our choices are rarely pure. More often than not, we choose between imperfect options, or between the lesser of two evils.
At times, the sense of inevitability becomes overwhelming – as it did in Europe before 1914, when people felt the machinery of mobilisation grinding forward and believed they were powerless to stop it. But fatalism is itself a choice, and a dangerous one. The moment we surrender to the idea that events are inevitable, we help make them so.
In the end, the only antidote to fatalism is the recognition of a common humanity. Whatever our governments do, whatever narratives are spun, whatever interests are invoked, we remain a species struggling to survive on the same fragile planet. If we lose sight of that, then the Melian Dialogue becomes prophecy rather than warning.
To think clearly – intellectually and morally – is not to solve the world’s problems. It is simply to refuse to sleepwalk through them.
IX. Conclusion: A Small Act of Witness
I am writing this first and foremost for my own clarity. The arguments in the coming days will be loud, simplistic, and often cynical. I want to have done the slow work before the shouting begins.
If no one reads this, so be it. After the deluge, I can at least point to it and say: I tried to think while others were reacting. A small act of witness in a noisy age.