Politically active people generally tend to be more hipocritical, because it is not in their interest to see nuance or to self-criticize.

And then there is the Chomsky approach that you should only criticise that which you can influence…which leaves all the dictatorships free from criticism…but they still have to share a world with other states.

Even in the UN, the general assembly members always vote according to their own interests, not as a jury for the application of the principles of the UN charter. The SG at least has kept some ethical consistency, but it is still disheartening.

e.g. how most tankies push the notion that whenever someone commits a crime and it goes unpunished, none of the rules apply anymore and when you point it out, they eventually devolve to the fascist motto “those who have power do what they want and the others suffer what they must”.

This boils down to tribalism, but I imagine these talking points come from people of all political colours living in large countries without any threat of ever being invaded, because every smaller country from Uruguai to Belgium to Moldova understands the need for rules and multilateralism. Otherwise, it’s back to warring empires :/