I don't really follow the argument. The article states that 'Rationalists' can avoid a conversation about politics because they have limited resources which would be used for minimal impact.
The same argument applies to the 'principal' or 'Great Powers'. In both situation the parties did not ask to have to expend their resources to absorb information and pass judgment on someone else's problem (fight or war). They are not being pretentious, serene, or pretending to be wise - they are simply using their resources most efficiently to accomplish their own goals.
Its a simple matter of each party estimating that the outcome of action A (without judgment), and the outcome of action B (with judgment) will have a marginal difference.
I'd agree in cases where the 'Great Powers' are really staying out of the dispute. Often enough though, they do intercede, and want to ignore important information when doing so. Imagine if the principal suspends both the bully and the bullied - is that going to achieve the principal's long term goals?
The same argument applies to the 'principal' or 'Great Powers'. In both situation the parties did not ask to have to expend their resources to absorb information and pass judgment on someone else's problem (fight or war). They are not being pretentious, serene, or pretending to be wise - they are simply using their resources most efficiently to accomplish their own goals.
Its a simple matter of each party estimating that the outcome of action A (without judgment), and the outcome of action B (with judgment) will have a marginal difference.