[scilro]

US unipolar hegemony has averted an all-out war, but it has also been very bloody, or at least immiserating, for people at its periphery.

Multipolarity doesn't imply we go back to the 1910s. The idea would be to strengthen multilateral institutions that put a check on things like the World Wars.

[inglor_cz]

Humans are pretty much the same as they were in the 1910s, or the entire history before.

If there is anything that keeps us from tearing each other's throats out, it is a) democracy, which in most countries makes going into a war of aggression somewhat harder (I know, the US is a huge exception, but Trump I. was partially elected on the basis of Clinton being perceived as a war hawk), and b) the intuition that weapons are now so destructive that there is nothing to win, except scorched earth.

Still that didn't stop Putin from launching his war; miscalculation such as his ("the enemy is a paper tiger and will fold immediately") is very possible even today.

IIRC the same delusion led Saddam to invade Iran in 1980.

[suraci]

> democracy, which in most countries makes going into a war of aggression somewhat harder

no, it's just because some countrys lost their power of aggression, nothing related to democracy

the US is not the only one with dirty hands, every NATO member is part of it

just check France, the only reason it doesn't colonize african anymore is it's too weak

not a single french voter gives a fk about what france is doing in africa