u/Selavia59

What is the difference between these two words? Don't they both mean death? Are they interchangeable in usage?

To me it appears that all states - including states you and I might like - act purely out of self-interest, not out of morality or in accordance with international law (if they do, that's purely because it benefits them or makes the adversary - be it the Soviet Union, the USA or Israel - look bad).

When push comes to shove, I believe all states do what's beneficial, even if their choices are in conflict with human rights or self-imposed ideological principles.

For example, the Baltics are threatened with Russian invasion, so that they strip many Russian citizens of citizenship. Also, during WW2 the Americans supported the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis even though Winston Churchill disliked it. When the USA was established, the Russians were sympathetic to the Americans' cause because it could weaken the British Empire - the exact same thing happened when Israel became independent in 1948.

Several countries have historically tried to act as a beacon of freedom or justice. In the 19th century, Russia claimed to protect the Orthodox peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Nowadays, America acts (at least until Trump became president) as a beacon of freedom even though it is one of the most aggressive and militarized countries in history that may break international law or moral principles when it suits them (e.g. massacring the Native Americans, using Napalm in Vietnam or invading Iraq in 2003). Iran has also tried to act as a helper of sorts to Palestinians and Muslims in order to gain influence, something it seems to have been very succesful with now that the Americans made the foolish decision to start a war. My argument is that this type of countries - and, at least to some extent, every country - spread these narratives simply to appear morally superior to others.

Are there any instances where states have sacrificed self-interest for values, principles or human rights?

CMV!