I feel it is important to note that, at least in the United States and Russia ("superpowers" in general), international warfare (or interventions, according to the US government, a term invented mostly to bypass constitutional rules on the declaration of war) is a product of wider systemic issues relating to global economics, the military industrial complex, and securing geopolitical (which are often downstream from economics) interests/power projection. US foreign policy will likely continue roughly along the same lines, waxing or waning a bit, without systemic changes.
It is not a matter of simply electing the right people, as the entrenched bureaucracy holds enough institutional power to shape and sustain U.S. foreign policy regardless of electoral outcomes. I'm not saying people shouldn't vote, but meaningful change will require a bottom-up, independent political movement capable of acting as a unified bloc, from local mayoral races to the presidency. Even then, achieving major systemic transformation would remain an uphill battle.
Just something to think about.
