Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping's comfort with Venezuela's dystopia encapsulates their utter disinterest in basic human interests. But that speaks to something broader: the contrast between Russia and China's foreign policy doctrine, and that of America, is defining.

Yes, the world of 2018 is better than it has ever been. It offers historically unrivaled human prosperity, and a relative peace devoid of major wars of the kind that marked the 20th century. And thanks largely to American capitalism, our world benefits from constantly advancing technologies that make our lives happier and healthier. But to adapt a line from the HBO series, "Game of Thrones," Venezuela also proves that the world is also dark and full of horrors.

Even as we seek to change it for the better, foreign policy realists must accept this world as it is. We must do so because absent that choice we risk policies that damage our citizens' interests and make the world less safe. For the authors of statecraft the priority, then, is to balance the long-term advancement of national and allied interests with human interests in any one moment. The best examples of this balance are the best alliances: NATO, for example. Yet realism also requires us to sometimes work with unpleasant actors to achieve preferable long-term outcomes.

Enter the Trump administration's relationship with Saudi crown prince and de facto ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. Trump is right to maintain close relations with Saudi Arabia even as we oppose the prince's worst impulses. American security, regional stability, and reduced Yemeni suffering all give weight to this righteous realism. It is the combination of these variable interests that make U.S. policy in Saudi Arabia the moral choice it is.

Contrast America's realistic balancing of interests with the policy applied by Beijing and Moscow in Venezuela. To be sure, as with U.S. interests in Saudi Arabia, China and Russia have valuable national interests in President Nicolas Maduro retaining power in Caracas. Maduro serves as a regional counterweight and frustration to both nations' primary foe, America, and the Venezuelan leader acts as an important oil-export ally. China needs Maduro's oil for its economy, and Russia needs Venezuela's influence in OPEC to support Moscow's output-price strategy.

Crucially, however, unlike U.S. influence towards Saudi Arabia on issues like Yemen, neither China or Russia have any interest in influencing Maduro toward a greater morality. On the contrary, Xi and Putin are absolutely happy to see Venezuela's people starve, beg, and prostitute themselves just as long as Maduro does what they want him to do.

What's equally telling is that neither Xi nor Putin attempt to hide their selfish disregard for humanity.

Just last week Putin threw out the red carpet for Maduro as he visited Moscow to beg for investment. And Putin's whole offer of engagement with Saudi Arabia is built on the principle of absolute moral latitude.

In September, Maduro found similar friendliness as he visited China. In neither case did either leader privately or publicly pressure their ally to take greater action to reduce his peoples' grotesque human suffering. Predictably, Putin simply resorted to his worn KGB encyclopedia of trope-tastic un-realities. "We support," Putin told Maduro, "your efforts to achieve mutual understanding in society and all your actions aimed at normalizing relations with the opposition." Putin knows that Maduro's "efforts" have nothing to do with "normalizing relations" and everything to do with smashing the opposition. But Putin also knows his words lend fabric to his propaganda weavers.

Regardless, all the world should pay heed to the divergence between American realism and Sino-Russian realism, because the two doctrines are far from similar. Indeed, their divergence speaks to a multitude of other international realities such as China's concentration camp industry and Pacific Ocean thievery, and Russia's treatment of Syrian lungs, and assassination adventurism. This speaks to a simple truth: Were China or Russia ever to displace the realism of the American-led international order, it would be disastrous for humanity.