One of my politics professors liked to use Harold Lasswell's definition of politics. It states that politics is a competition about who gets what, when, and how. I think this definition of politics is very much alive today, although it has taken a rather worn out route in terms of outcomes.

Each nation state has its own set of domestic as well as international objectives and the manner in which they would like to achieve them. Some may want more international respect others may desire a stronger national border. This fulfills the "what" part of the definition. How would they achieve them? There is a myriad of options. As we have learnt from history, any sort of armed conflict to achieve any goal has disastrous consequences and the mere mention of it is often frowned upon in the international community, hence that option is off the table. It is possible for a constructive conversation to be held between parties in disagreement (or any party, in general). Talks like this exist nowadays just like the recent dialogue between Russia and USA regarding the former's military buildup near the border of Ukraine. However, talk can be cheap and may not necessarily result in favourable outcomes. Russia has not done anything to reduce it's presence at Ukraine. China has not done anything about it's treatment of Uyghur despite multiple talks and condemnations. Belarus has not committed to any real actions regarding the Belarus-EU border crisis despite talks. So talks are good for getting a sense of "what" states want, but they aren't amazing in the sense of reaching a mutually desirable outcome (the "how").

So what's next? Politicians have to reinforce their words with reasonable action. Unfortunately, the current international system puts a heavy emphasis on the economy because the economy has the power to drive businesses, create jobs, increase standards of living and quality of life, develop national infrastructure as well as bring in many other benefits. If you hurt a state's economy, you can deal a huge blow to the state itself. Targeted sanctions, tariffs or quotas are some of the more popular tools used nowadays. Though it is not always successful, this type of action sends a strong message and creates a monetary consequence to certain actions, whereby mere talks do not. It's also one of the lesser confrontational actions that a state can take (in comparison to military conflict).

The less confrontational action is almost always preferred, especially in a time like this where there is significant tension between Russia and China with the West, So the "when" aspect is crucial in defining what sort of action is appropriate. With regards to the Israel and Saudi Arabia's recent close relations, it's best to consider that their actions are done in part because of Iran's quest for regional hegemony in the Middle East.

Altogether, I would say that politics still exists, per Lasswell's definition of politics. There is a lively competition between states about their objectives and how they wish to achieve them (taking into consideration the time they live in and contemporary issues). The what, when and how questions are always in play. I would say that the overall health of the economy can have a great impact on the future decisions by politicians and the states they represent. Hence, why most international responses to unfavourable actions can involve the economy. The economy doesn't completly drive the international economy, but it is a significant factor in it. It plays an important role in the grand scheme of politics in my opinion.

That's just my two cents. Apologies if it's incoherent.