[Cronos]

all nations historically, specially since the 16th century, have been driven by trade and economics

WEll then, the Brits (and French) preferred to make money and let the slamic Turks win over the Christian Russians. They have a lot of Russian blood on their hands from the Crimean war and no good reason to have fought that war. If they hadn't then Constantinople would have been restored.

[Publius6961]

Which statement specifically? As for the fact that the Brits laid the groundwork for most of the problems today (Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Kashmir), that's a known fact.

I do not dispute the facts, merely the ingenuousness of the lack of context and the reality of shifting alliances.

WEll then, the Brits (and French) preferred to make money and let the slamic Turks win over the Christian Russians. They have a lot of Russian blood on their hands from the Crimean war and no good reason to have fought that war. If they hadn't then Constantinople would have been restored.

That is exactly my point. No statement is incorrect, simply ignores context and contemporary circumstances. The enemy of my enemy thing, driven by economics. Yes, they can be viewed as "wrong" in retrospect, but is the mother's milk of international relations to this very day.