Who Appointed US World’s Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

I started this blog in June 2012 believing that sustained engagement with history and facts would clarify how the world’s largest democracy conducts itself on the global stage. Over time, that clarity has led less to reassurance and more to unease.

Modern history reveals a series of conflicts in which the United States played a decisive role—sometimes directly, often indirectly. From the atomic bombings of Japan to the enduring division of the Korean Peninsula, from Cold War entanglements in Lebanon to decades-long sanctions on Iran, the pattern is difficult to dismiss. Iraq stands out most starkly: first drawn into nearly a ten-year war with Iran, then subjected to crippling sanctions, and finally invaded on claims that were later proven unfounded. The humanitarian cost was immense, while accountability remained elusive.

The Ukraine conflict must also be viewed in a broader strategic context. Russia’s military action warrants criticism, yet it did not emerge in isolation. NATO’s steady eastward expansion and Washington’s deepening involvement in Eastern Europe contributed to an environment of confrontation. Sanctions on Russia, prepared well in advance, suggest that the crisis was embedded in a wider geopolitical rivalry rather than being purely reactive.

Venezuela further complicates the narrative of a rules-based international order. Years of sanctions, open support for regime change, and sustained economic pressure were justified in the name of democracy. Yet Venezuela’s vast oil reserves inevitably raise questions about the balance between principles and interests. Sovereignty, in this case, appears negotiable.

Equally striking is the restrained response from other major powers. Russia and China voice objections cautiously. Britain, France, and Germany express concern while largely aligning with Washington. India opts for strategic restraint. This reflects less global consensus and more the realities of power asymmetry.

The central issue, therefore, is not the US influence itself, but its limits. Who defines the rules, who enforces them, and who is held accountable when they are breached? Until these questions are addressed, the international order will continue to appear selective—and increasingly fragile.