One may believe that the West is preferable to the East. Whether this concerns the political system or what we call “principles and values”. However, when this belief takes on the characteristics of fanaticism, then the problems begin.
Initially it takes the form of a mixture of arrogance-superiority. An attempt is made to transmit them to the rest of the world, accepting as axiomatic that all nations cannot but desire… deep down, an identical system of government to ours. Increasingly, in recent decades, such criteria have been used to justify war adventures. As a result, accusations of hypocrisy are launched, aimed at covering up geopolitical aspirations!
In the process, however, we find that authoritarian regimes, as it has become common to call those who do not strictly adhere to our own code of principles and values, enjoy an advantage. Because they have greater autonomy in making and implementing decisions than in Western-style democracies. In the effort to address the problem, however, these principles and values begin to be discounted!
The most characteristic example of the era is the ban on access to Russian media, on the grounds that they spread false news and are used as propaganda tools. However, this indicates the belief that our own media refrain from such practices and exclusively broadcast the product of journalistic research! But how is this possible, if there is no access and independent evaluation of the content of the opponent’s media?
A second example will help us connect the comment with current news. Is there any mainstream media outlet in the West that has not abused the report of Vladimir Putin’s isolation as a result of the invasion of Ukraine? In addition to repeatedly refuting the oft-proposed theory of the imminent collapse of the Russian Federation, or at least the Putin regime.
When even the opponents are discussing…
With this in mind, it is worth approaching the news of the convening of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, with the participation of 17 heads of state and government: Russia, China, India, Turkey, Iran… And if you add up the population factor alone, the argument about isolation collapses on its own.
On the contrary, if something emerges more and more clearly, it is the isolation of the West from at least half the planet! And this, because it sets standards for accepting someone as an interlocutor! In the end, we will say to Turkey… thank you for being at the Shanghai Organization summit in its capacity as a NATO member state, even if it represented itself only. In order to find a solution to the F-35 problem, Erdogan did the obvious. He asked to meet with Putin, who has a veto on what will happen to the S-400. Always under normal circumstances…
The countries that were at the summit in Kyrgyzstan do not mean that they agree with each other everywhere, or that there are no problems in their bilateral relations. Then, India should not be present, because of China, but also Pakistan! And when Indian Prime Minister Modi met Russian President Putin, he told him clearly that his country wants an end to the war in Ukraine. He did not caress his ears. To receive the answer that “we are working in this direction”. With whatever that could mean.
The same results emerge from the presence of Iranian President Pesekian. His statement that Iran “will respond immediately” if the US returns to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding of June 17 can only be interpreted as an “olive branch”. Moreover, he stated it unequivocally: “War is not in our interest”. In other words, he is now asking them to move away from the confrontational logic. This cannot happen if Washington continues to seek the complete imposition of its will on Iran, considering any such statement as proof of weakness and… imminent collapse.
Unconditional retreat is not consistent with Iran’s history and self-respect, regardless of whether one likes it or dislikes it. It demonstrates a transactional mood and an intention to find a way out of the impasse. Obviously, a change in the Tehran regime’s stance towards Israel is required. Internal needs make this very difficult, leaving no room for a meaningful diplomatic process. But these are not discussed on television.
The same results emerge from the presence of Iranian President Pesekian. His statement that Iran “will respond immediately” if the US returns to the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding of June 17 can only be interpreted as an “olive branch”. Moreover, he stated it unequivocally: “War is not in our interest”. In other words, he is now asking them to move away from the confrontational logic. This cannot happen if Washington continues to seek the complete imposition of its will on Iran, considering any such statement as proof of weakness and… imminent collapse.
Returning to the “Western isolationism”, with what logic, for example, does the EU abstain from such an important meeting, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit? Shouldn’t it be there as an observer? Shouldn’t it promote a European reading of global developments? If there were serious European representation, which of the leaders present there would not wish to strengthen its relations with the EU?
Where are the European leaderships of another era, whose diplomatic representation caused global awe? We have probably forgotten some… in the “inclusion”. Unless they no longer exist, as a result of the profound social changes and transformations on the Old Continent. Or are the problems and the harsh negotiations between Russia and China missing? And yet, what was said by Putin and Xi is characteristic: Aware of all the difficulties, based on common interests, they have a code of communication.
Coexistence decision
Is this timeless modus operandi ultimately a much more normal international behavior, compared to the ideologically charged one of our own West? Does it better create the basic condition of not resorting to coercive practices? At least beyond some limits that would potentially threaten with deviation and conflict? Simply, the two countries are determined… to coexist in the emerging world.
Perhaps Western references to an axis are causing smiles in Moscow and Beijing! And finally, is it possible that the Western approach and stance are grist for the mill of those who desire the transformation into an axis? Because this too, based on common interests, would happen! The Trump administration showed an understanding of this reality early in its term. The clumsy and impulsive way of managing international affairs on the part of the current occupant of the White House does not help.
How is it possible for the West, with its history, culture, and democratic tradition, to lightly accept this situation that is literally altering its soul? Somehow, evidence is offered that points to self-isolation and ultimately self-destruction.
