This was extremely confusing and I didn't really understand your point. A number of your sentence feel like non sequitur.
"might makes right" seems pretty spelled out for me : it means that whoever is able to enforce his will is "right". Basically a moral justification for the law of the strongest. Alternatively a constatation that if one is powerful enough he can influence others to see him as in the right (guess it would be the "history is written by the victor"), but in this case it's just an observation and not a moral argument.
Everything is an observation. "moral" arguments depend what we consider "moral". Your morals are not mine. Mine are not Narz's. Narz's are not Crezth's. How on earth do you define "enforcing", if you can't see that the US imposing its foreign policy r.e. Ukraine is "might"?
Do I therefore think that it's bad that the US is aiding Ukraine? Of course not. But some people will, because the problem isn't who is right, it's
how the will is enforced (to make the thing "right"). It's a moral argument, all the way down. Unless someone's a sociopath, in which case it's literally just brute force that wins and nothing end. The ultimate "ends justify the means".
This all came out of you having a dig at Crezth for apparently supporting "might makes right". I'm saying we all do. History is written by the victors, because
all history is written by the victors. It's why that phrase exists, and why historians have such a hard time relying on historical text to give a faithful understanding of what actually happened. How much of the Aztecs did we learn from the accounts of Spanish Conquistadors? How much about kings and queens did we learn from their admirers, or their enemies? If Russia wins in Ukraine, they get to determine the history there, in violation of what anyone else thinks on the subject. They already did in Crimea. The same goes for Israel in the Middle East. They get to write their own story, teach their own children that story. Just as schools in countries all across the world teach sanitised versions of their own histories. "but it's okay when we do it", or "our history is closer to the actual truth than theirs". It doesn't matter. They're all ultimately justifications.
If it was as simple as a definition, there'd be little argument about it. And I'm not saying I agree with Crezth's take on the subject. But I know from past experience you and I disagree on a bunch of things, so where does that leave us?