I have very few men in mind, but my own judgement may not be sufficient to have such knowledge in the sense that I can be certain. Moreover, these people cannot be perfect and, as you say, may have done some things that could not absolve them of wrongdoing.
I note that people who have basic integrity were born into a world in which crime and arbitrariness are the order of the day. It is questionable whether it is even possible to be a statesman who can remain true to his conscience in such an environment.
Apart from that, every statesman who has come into office has to make some lazy compromises. That, I think, is the reality.
You can't expect perfection from anyone and I don't think you can have that expectation when you think about politics.
So it is more likely to be individual episodes in which a statesman was able to preserve his integrity while causing the least possible damage. Where his reasonable actions outweigh the unreasonable ones.
Biblically speaking, however, no one is without sin.
With these realities in mind, the actions and decisions of a government must be viewed more in terms of the ‘least damage caused’, both internally and externally. The people themselves are a reflection of their statesmen and the fewer virtues are to be found in them, the less they are to be found in their leaders.
One big criminal act of omission is open borders, playing into the hands of human trafficking and putting the citizens of a country - as well as the newcomers - in a situation they cannot possibly handle.
Among the worst mental lapses I count statesmen and their staffs who have no balanced goal or vision whatsoever to develop a long-term view for their peoples existence. And who lack the confidence to develop relationships with other statesmen, seeing interdependence as something positive, not negative.
In general, I would say that Eastern statesmen are superior to Western statesmen in that they govern countries that not so long ago knew abject poverty and still had to catch up with technological progress. And their mentality also differs from ours in other ways, often in such a way that it is not completely comprehensible to us. We must not forget that these nations have role models (USA, Europe) that show how things can be messed up.
It's a bit like when a younger sibling decides not to follow the same course based on the mistakes of an older sibling.
Since every statesman springs from the people themselves, is born and grows up in their midst, the people bear a large part of the responsibility for what becomes of them. To the extent that the critical mass is committed to a way of life that lacks integrity, self-trust and conscientiousness, it creates its own weak leaders.
... Sorry, I was carried away and did not really answer your question.
You certainly discuss the same ideas, even if you didn't name names.