I appreciate the discussion and thoughtful response.

> But my read is that you over index on the notion of laws

To be fair, nothing I said asserted the relative importance of international law in comparison to other influences (i.e. military power, strategic goals, economic interests, a vindictive leader).

> hence your general befuddlement on the current outcome

Where do you get the impression that I'm befuddled? I was disappointed in the lack of nuance of some comments, so I pushed back, but I'm not 'befuddled' by current events.

> Sovereign nations follow international law and order to the extent their goals align and perceived costs of contravening them exceeds some threshold.

This sounds like the 'rational actor' model from international relations. [1] But that model is not the only game in town, nor is it universally the best model to use!

> Might ultimately makes right, has always been the case.

I would happily see this phrase fall out of usage. It is what authoritarians want you to believe. What is right != who has power. Normative != positive. They are not the same. We would do well not to blur 'what is' with 'what should be', not even in an aphorism.

[1]: http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/ps12/03-rational-decision-...