Jonathan Cook has a piece in Scheerpost: "Rubio Declared a Return to Brutal Western Colonialism – and Europe applauded." Here's the key sentence:

According to Rubio, that decline was accelerated by what he dismissed as the “abstractions of international law”, established by the United Nations in the immediate postwar period. In the pursuit of what he derisively termed “a perfect world”, these new universal laws – ones that treated all humans as equal – served only to hamstring western colonialism.

Rubio neglected to mention that the purpose of international law was to prevent a return to the horrors of the Second World War: the extermination of civilians in death camps and the firebombing of European and Japanese cities.

We are in World War Three right now. We were in World War Three when Biden was President. As Cook admits:

In typical Trumpian fashion, Rubio has simply made explicit what was already implicit. The US has been an imperial superpower since the 1940s and has become an ever more confrontational one in a world of diminishing resources, where it enjoys the advantage of being the sole military superpower.

Rubio is simply more honest than his predecessors about the decades-long trajectory of US foreign policy.

Of course, the Russian military superpower is at present reviving, and soon we will have a Chinese military superpower too. This is why World War Three is happening now.

Toward the bottom of his Scheerpost essay Cook rounds down to the summary, objectively true, that Rubio's speech was crap, and that it was in fact crap for the reason I mentioned in citing Castoriadis, that, in short, it served as a mere evidence of the "complete atrophy of political imagination" of which Castoriadis complained (at the end of the Eighties).

It's not merely that Rubio and his audience are now in the habit of applauding violence. And it's not merely that Rubio can't imagine how things in the world could be arranged differently, although it certainly is that. It's also that Rubio simplifies diversity: all resistance to the old imperialism was "Communism." Once again, Cook:

Most people – even westerners – understand that oppressing another people, denying their humanity and their right to equality, is profoundly unjust and immoral. That is not going to change because Washington has a misty-eyed view of colonialism and apartheid.

In this regard it would be constructive, and beneficial to all, if "most people" would quit the game of deciding every two or four years which of the warmonger candidates is the better one, and vote in revolt against the dictatorship of warmongers. The problem, then, is that "most people," insofar as they are voters, are overthinking it, out of -- you guessed it -- a complete atrophy of political imagination. Perhaps "most people" need the standard advice: don't think more, think smarter.