It should be clarified that better practice where safe for interests by leading places is helpful for the following reasons: 

1.The absence can cause a confusion of their own internal values for their masses, which means positions held must be sustained by further repression and tyranny towards others, a less helpful strategy with competing places present and rising human grievances, and the internal regression or disillusionment of one’s own masses, and a decrease in evolution and an increase in their people becoming either alienated or showing worse values, which are reflected by others in their categorisation of that place as a problem, which is also a gap competition then takes advantage of to cover its own weaknesses and get opportunities, influence and PR squandered away by the tyrannical place. This way, positions gained are lost with time and the model isn’t scaled into some form of acceptance by others, meaning influence and seeds of becoming a possible empire are lost to resistance and confusion, while one’s masses get alienated, or become impractically worse humans. Rising places can, sometimes, but established places hurt themselves in trying as better values would have begun working and they no longer have the drive of struggle or a need to get ahead, instead they need to secure their interests and justify staying ahead with a better offer and coherence. If they’ll act like rising places and worse, rising places will be justified in playing tricks on them and replacing them with time. This is self defeating for a place that should be stabilising itself across all counts longest term by differentiating itself with its head start as an advantage, instead of regressing and signalling to the world it’s reached a wall for its model and it’s downhill from there, so other rising places can market that their values are more just and coherent for global masses, or alternative models are necessary and appropriately directed (there is a spectrum of very good people and some outliers everywhere- the masses cannot be punished one place indiscriminately over one’s own error, eg Israel’s government claiming Gaza is in Israel on Sep 22 2023 officially at the UN then not bothering even for a month to check its borders or Intel, then punishing the entire collective to the detriment of western and Israeli interests at a time matured Arabs had been giving Israel an unprecedented corridor and those Arabs weren’t even bringing up Palestine, then not being fair by that claim by protecting Israel’s own claimed “Gazan Israeli children”), which is not true except poor behaviour by leading places makes it true, while others get more intelligent as the leading place gets more tyrannical and confused and then played by others, while feedback and course correction is no longer given its due place. It’s unnecessary to subject oneself to. If, in making it, better values were marketed to their locals and foreigners in the claim their pitch is better, and it turned to a pitch of worse values, locals’ will lose orientation and other places can come up with better justifications. Even the Mongols offered better security along the Silk Road and the freedom to practice better values. Brutality is not effective in stability and secured interests longest term, especially for the modern world, if other ways are possible, they should not be eroded towards worse practice. Time should have showed growth, and responses should be necessary, not later disproved in illegitimacy as Israel’s government showed via Sep 22 2023, provoking Hamas needlessly, then opening borders and not monitoring intel, defaming the Wests legitimacy, being uncovered over time by even one civilian, let alone the resulting unnecessity (please excuse I can sometimes shorten words) being observed by competing places. Notice now that some of the West is being lied to by false allies while others are alienated and their people are disillusioned or regressing because leadership isn’t course correcting, confusing internal values so predators gain, something other places have seen many times and suffer to this day because it gets more and more difficult to then return and competition shows up to confuse and weaken further, and such places are surprised to see leading places do such to themselves and their people unnecessarily.

2.Games played by others in response increase as do grievances that snowball over time. The unnecessary additional confusion created makes it harder even for policy makers to discern how to gauge allies, who either get alienated or begin tricking such places in return, to get ahead while collective values can erode against these parts longer term. Already, places and internal actors lie and pander to the falling lobby of the incompetent sons of competent men doing to the west what happened to the mongols, the Mughals or European royalty overtime- self destruction, while they perpetuate the liars and the predators in a last ditch attempt to keep from accountability at the expense of their entire blocs foundations, which are either eroded or have to then resist them and turn away from their cause to further internal confusion while China India Russia and Muslim and other places don’t have the same weakness, and many parties will be more than ready to increase that chaos, while people with vision will be barred from positions by these lobbies and there is no one left to save the majority of the West, in the absence of which, other models will take over to struggles and those models also have incoherent values globally scaled, but aren’t making the mistakes the sinking lobby is causing their countries to sink over, while barbarians and even legitimate new actors are being built through grievances and unnecessary excesses and then things and values will be out of all hands, as even technology can get hijacked. 

3.It can confuse internal masses to the point predators rise and thrive. 

4.It can be a bad precedent regarding practical ethics at a time tools of intelligence more powerful than one’s own human intelligence are being built, and can unnecessarily rig outcomes towards possible worse ones.

5.Parties with genuine grievance can result in other places having more proxies, while those other places can market and justify having a better model to global masses.

6.Peaceful, smarter ways, self-sustaining via adapting to the new role can bring better and most lasting results and hegemony in later stages of a place having gained influence

7.Alternatives are possible and can work better. In the modern model, one can see Russia, China and Singapore begin getting up in one or one and a half generation, and overtime, they claim to have gotten to better morality and curbed certain excesses and negative marketing, even as errors happened. They do at least pretend moral coherence, as China claimed it wasn’t Muslims but foreign planted dissent being handled, but otherwise tried to show maturity and just markets a culture of religion being secondary to the state for other principles, but not disrespectfully, while there are several religion based games Russia avoids playing, and both show consistency on some fronts. They wouldn’t had they not realized there are advantages to that, directly and in picking up the Wests gaps, while the absence can be disadvantageous. In analysing policy, Russia warned Ukraine for years and months not to join the EU for Russian border insecurity before it acted (which was terrible too, but I think the EU membership warning to Russia initially was an okay or even good move to bring Russia to the negotiating table, but was taken too far and then cues were ignored, whereas, in a timely way, the Ukrainian president ought to have negotiated in the months Russia was warning them, negotiation cue, and Russia has its reputation otherwise of being tough if ignored over a border issue as Russia naturally considers NATO on its borders a big issue to its national security and has never made a secret of it, particularly regarding Ukraine and NATO bases and has terrible weapons one must try protecting their civilians against by negotiating once Russia has come to the table) in order to get a good deal for his people like an Orange Revolution 2.0 with European influence and rights nearly equal to the EU, but without official EU membership so Russia was appeased regarding its critical security, but this leadership ignored all cues and signalled stubbornness and an inability to act in a timely manner for strategic diplomacy, resulting in his own people becoming collateral and the West getting involved in Ukraine and Gaza in an overlapping way to the confusion of their masses and internals and a weakened picture on the other side (the blindspots created worked towards the Wests disadvantage, which is why intelligent practice would have been smarter and helped keep vision focused and clearer, as is the point of this study, bad decisions can lead to other grey areas of poor vision taking over or a grasp over events being lost over time) and not taking several windows of negotiation offered in what seemed like ego, when what he did didn’t work compared to the losses taken in not negotiating intelligently before or during the issue. He claimed the line of control being breached was an issue but that’s an unfortunate occurrence happening nearly everywhere yet places know they have to find ways to stay focused. It was not enough of a reason to get stubborn, not negotiate enough or keep triggering Russia beyond a certain point to the detriment of one’s own masses lives and still be unwilling to now move forward) but Israel did September 22 2023 claiming Gaza at the UN, triggering Hamas, then opening its borders and ignoring intel, then turning around to torture civilian army-less Gazans and their young families more than a year, justifying more feeling they would have to join Hamas to resist this illogical trap or they would be killed as collateral anyway and that Israel claims them as Israelis under its democratic model but treats them differently without establishing individual guilt, like Nazi Germany once did, without Israel solving the hostage issue, at a time matured Arabs had been giving Israel an unprecedented corridor of inclusion and prosperity and Arabs hadn’t been mentioning Palestine, which meant the West and Israel were getting intelligent hegemony and influence against Russia China etc, and a spread of strategic allies but acted then so tyrannical, allies were alienated, trust lost and those they then had to ally with could afford to be more predatory and with tougher negotiations towards the West that secures them and their rise and the decline of the West, while foreign competition and internals began cashing in on the window by breaking the West. Now, they can either use more repression and force as the West looks bad and popularity and position decline with every kind of natural threat (natural disasters, unknowns etc), regressing populations in terms of values and confused internals where predators gain from the confusion to rise and rising other places while other places signal better coherence in claimed relative morality, while they’re confused by predatory allies and grievances rise while their vision is ruined, factors which have, in history, indicated declines, or they would have to adapt to better practice anyway.  

8.The blind spots of fewer tools at ones disposal other than repression and the confused defensive protection of tyranny also results in blind spots and needless rigidity to defend poor practice, while competition is careful to avoid such unnecessary transgressions without adapting. They are rising as a result, and this bloc is having to either be more irrational and tyrannical and repressive, or adapt to keep its position. The West could have been stronger than it is now, had it not facilitated its decline to the rise of competition. Whether it stops and course corrects or gets more confused while it has to signal a tyrannical model and confuse its people and internals is for us to see with time.