[diego_moita]

This is called "Realpolitik": international relations are meant to serve your national interests, not ethical principles. By now, the main national interest in the West is to not give oil money to the psychotic butcher in Moscow. The Saudi butcher is a little less psychotic by comparison.

There are dozens of philosophers that advanced this idea: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes,...

Many of the most famous statesmen in history were followers of this principle: Richelieu, Frederik the Great, Von Clausewitz, Otto Von Bismark, Metternich, Henry Kissinger,... Unsurprisingly, many of them were Germans. And none of them was a nice person.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

But this "Realpolitik" was already contested successfully by India ( among others ). Are you saying that this example does not test the rule? Perfect should not be the enemy of the good?

I buy your argument, but your example is not good.

[diego_moita]

> contested successfully by India ( among others ).

Yes, also by my native country, Brazil. Shame on us for that.

In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right?

Up until WWII, "Realpolitik" is what gave us so many wars, so little commerce, so little international cooperation, so much European imperialism, ...

So I do agree we need to find ethics in international relations. One important reason my country (Brazil) gave up on slavery was British pressure. Global Warming won't be solved without ethics commitment.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<<In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right?

I thought about your argument and I believe you convinced me. I was wrong. I think I had my head stuck in my ideal version of the world.