To Fundamentally Change or not to Fundamentally Change....What was the Question?

Interesting title I know however, this is how I feel when it comes to fundamentally change within the international realm. I feel most actors would like to change the system and create something grander than what has been created  but something deep down in me will always think that international actors(when push comes to shove) will emphatically revert back to a autonomous, anarchy, and sovereignty viewpoint becasue at the end of the day  countries will act upon the it's all about me, my self interest, and how I choose to protect and secure my country mentality. This type of thinking will make you put the Utopia yearning on the back burner and revert back to anarchy. This is what Waltz would call a natural state of anarchy. Like I mentioned in my argument, If you are looking through the eyes of Hobbs, an anarchic environment in the state of nature is described as a state of disorder and war of all against all. However, this description is not the case with many theorists including Waltz. According to Waltz, anarchic is described as “no sovereign body that governs the interactions between autonomous nation-states”. Waltz also points out that in an anarchic environment, war happens between states and is based on states wanting to survive (war exist when states struggle with the structure of the system). To me,the struggle will always exist.