The end of WWII was kind of weird in many respects, because the realism brought about by the boots on the ground suddenly took a back seat to the idealism of the suits safe behind enemy lines.
Among the concepts cooked up by these post-war politicians was "rules-based international law," which was a unicorns and rainbows idea that peace would reign if everyone would just work together. Hindsight is 20/20, of course, and you can't fault the optimism that came with post-war victory, but what I can fault people on is the fact that it obviously didn't work for decades, and we still kept it going as if one day the Utopia would magically appear.
The issue is that even the people singing John Lennon's Imagine didn't believe the lyrics. Many of them were perfectly happy to aggressively virtue signal their peaceful nature while they either ignored those working to destabilize the globe or were actively trying to destabilize it themselves.
Exhibit A:
Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro breaks into singing John Lennon's 'Imagine' as he talks about US tensions. pic.twitter.com/R270tpM5AF
— The Associated Press (@AP) November 16, 2025
The U.S.'s capture of Maduro has set off a firestorm of indignation and outrage from international players, many of whom are located in Europe, where the "rules-based international order" delusion is second only to the Democrat Party in America in thickness.
They are, as I write this, mourning the unilateral decision to bring Maduro to justice, effectively spitting in the face of the globalist idealized "order." As Danish MEP Henrik Dahl wrote in Euronews, it never existed in the first place, and the fantasy is being lifted:
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have — diplomatically speaking — a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
That the United States, Russia, and China adhere to the principles of the rules-based international order only until they no longer do so is nothing new. The difference lies rather in how such violations are justified.
I'm going to say that Dahl is correct, but not in the way he thinks he is.
Yes, it was all a fantasy, but it was all a fantasy because the people who pounded their chests and said they believed in it the most were more than happy to let the world go to pot because the ideologues that infested places like the U.N. became more concerned with looking cooperative than keeping peace. As dictators threatened the globe, terrorist cells found strength and safe harbor behind evil and often illegitimate leaders, communist nations gained power and boldness, and the "go along to get along" crowd held talks that were more Chamberlain than Churchill.
The truth is, a rules-based international order is a lot like gun control laws in America. The only people obeying them are the ones who have respect for that order. Anyone who doesn't is going to ignore it, and nobody should be surprised when people start turning up dead.
The passive element of the international community became so passive that it even began adopting principles antithetical to Western ideals. The peace and stability that a rules-based international order was supposed to establish was being upset by the very people who were supposed to keep it. In fact, some of these U.N. countries wore the mask of cooperation, even becoming indignant at the atrocities committed by nations that had every right to act as they did — Israel is a great example of this — then turned around and funded terrorist groups whose terrorism can be seen in Western nations like America.
If anyone was upholding the ideals of post-WWII America, it's Trump, who forcefully took an illegitimate dictator into custody and turned Venezuela's resources into an asset to assist the good guys instead of a boon for the bad.
But I will say this. It's my honest hope that this kills the delusion for good. The U.N. is a joke, and not a funny one at that. Rules-based international order is a great idea on paper, but in practice, it's the proverbial ship of fools.
