States are motivated less by values and ideals, and more by a narrow set of objectives and interests.
Really, this is where the argument fails, in a nutshell. The implicit assumption here is that the objectives and interests of the state are the objectives and interests of the people that the state leeches off. But this is inherently wrong, because if that were the case, there would be no such thing as libertarianism or anarchism.
There are some more basic fallacies here:
Once you acknowledge what motivates a country’s actions, international relations become comparatively predictable. It is a zero sum game of medium to long term power and influence
To paraphrase Maggie, there is no such thing as a country. What motivates the state that defines the foreign policy is different to the wants of the people that are subjugated by the state.
Furthermore, I would contest that interaction is always a zero sum game. It may be that there are narrow markets of influence where there is a zero sum game to be played, but I am not even sure of that.
Influence and intervention takes many forms. The British government has excellent ties to the government of Saudi Arabia. As a result of this, the Saudi government places orders with British companies to manufacture military equipment, as well as legacy contracts for spare parts and maintenance. Does this relationship sometimes get too close? Probably. But do British jobs depend on it? Absolutely.
Ah, the good old British job. You could quite reasonably argue that we should have a massive state surveillance system because it keeps people in jobs. We should have patrolled curfews because it keeps people in jobs and crimes off the street. We should be encouraging repressive regimes to brutally repress their citizens using our weapons and technology, because it keeps British people in jobs.
The British job, damn, isn't that a wonderful thing? More important than anything else in the world!
Another example is foodstuffs. Successive British governments, via a variety of means (both fair and foul) have secured trade agreements with African states. Our farmers are free to export subsided food to Africa, but African food sold here face tariffs, making it more expensive. So British farmer benefit from a secure market at home, and a valuable market overseas. Is this practice fair? No. Do British jobs and companies depend on it? Absolutely.
This is a facepalm-level Economics 101 failure: British farmers benefit, but what about the rest of us? There are roughly 500,000 farmers and farmworkers and 60,000,000 people in Britain. So the farmers "benefit" but 120 times as many people (many of them desperately poor) pay over the odds for food that could be cheaper if the British government wasn't working "in the national interest".
I'm sorry, there may be arguments in favour of an interventionist foreign policy, but nothing in this blogpost stands up to even basic scrutiny.