Why the West failed to convince the rest of the world to support its confrontation with Russia — RT Russia and the former Soviet Union

The US-led bloc no longer offers the only viable development model, meaning its ability to impose its will is fading

The recent festival of grand Western politics – which began with a meeting of the European Council, continued with the G7 summit and ended with a major NATO gathering – provides food for thought on the fate of the world.

On the surface, what we have seen is impressive: the West is showing unprecedented unity in the face of Russia’s campaign in Ukraine.

America has gathered almost all of its allies. Right now, from Australia to Norway, from Singapore to Portugal and from Japan to Iceland, the agenda is the same: to prevent the success of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who represents a rejection of the self -so-called “rules-based order”. .

The brutality and irreversibility of what is happening in Ukraine gives the situation the character of a moral choice. Almost all statements by Western leaders refer to a confrontation between “civilization and barbarism”. As a result, they think, there should be no doubt about which side to take.

The Western community has now reached its maximum capacity – its European flank (EU and NATO members plus Ukraine and Moldova), its Asian club (South Korea, Japan and Singapore have ceased to waver and took the “good side”), the Oceanian couple and of course, North America. The “free world” has never been so vast.

However, this raises a serious question. Has the West reached its natural limit beyond which expansion is no longer possible? And if so, what does that mean?

In fact, the theme of the limits of Western influence derives from the notorious concept of the “end of history”, which is already so worn out that it is even inconvenient to mention it. Nevertheless, it is appropriate in this context. The reflections of Francis Fukuyama (he was recently banned from entering Russia) led him to conclude that with the collapse of the communist alternative, the only question that remained was to know with what how quickly and painlessly the Western economic and sociopolitical model – which had proven its virtues in the confrontation with the USSR – would spread to the rest of the world. The author admitted that it would not be without its hitches, but in general the direction was determined once and for all.

It is known how things really turned out after the collapse of the USSR, and despite the fact that many crises in the developed countries obscured the vision of the expected path of development, the system was preserved – and no one has come even closer to the Western world in terms of well-being and comfort. And the Western media still have a quasi-monopoly in determining the image of what is happening on a global scale. This means he has a huge head start. But the limit seems to have been reached.

Perhaps the main surprise resulting from the events of recent months is that the West has failed to engage so much of the world in a united front against Russia – the exceptions being those who are already part of the Occident and a few who passionately wish to join him. the club.

This is unexpected, as few people approve of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Moscow is grappling with issues that seem to concern no one but itself, and the harsh methods and humanitarian consequences of the conflict do not elicit much sympathy from outside. In other words, objectively, the West has an excellent chance of winning over most of the rest of the world by claiming that its cause here is opposition to barbarism.

But this is not the case. Why? There are perhaps three main reasons.

First, the non-Western world knows full well that wars on the planet have never stopped, including over the past 30 years, and the statements of EU states about the era of “harmony and prosperity” that Putin interrupted are seen as both selfishness and hypocrisy. Telling people in the Middle East, for example, that Russia has violated every moral standard imaginable is, to say the least, difficult in light of what the region has been through since the end of the Cold War.

Decline of Western training of Ukrainian troops – media

Second, most people in the former Third World see current events as the culmination of a long-running conflict over the authoritarian policies of the United States and its allies regarding territories directly adjacent to Russia. Their attitude is something like, ‘What did you expect to happen when you provoked the tiger?’

Finally, the reaction of the majority of the planet illustrates their annoyance towards the West as a whole. He is seen as a hegemon with a colonial history and still abusing his powers. The reason is not support for Russian actions, but opposition to attempts by the West to impose its will on others, which often harms their own interests. Moreover, the schadenfreude over America’s failed attempts to impose its will compensates for doubts about the legitimacy of Moscow’s actions.

In other words, it is not sympathy for Russia, but antipathy for the West.

Western leaders are both surprised and alarmed by this situation. If early calls to join the boycott of Russia were orders, now demands have been replaced by exhortations and attempts to promise something in return. The selection of guests at the G7 Summit – the Presidents of India, Indonesia, Senegal, Argentina and South Africa – is indicative.

The guests were warmly welcomed. Everyone was eager to tap Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the shoulder and pay attention. But apart from general statements, nothing happened. And almost parallel to the events in Europe, Modi took part in a virtual BRICS summit, and Argentina, it seems, along with Iran, asked to join this emerging association.

The position of non-Western states is not only dictated by anti-colonial instincts, even if they exist. More importantly, under the new conditions, it is difficult for the West to offer the leading countries of the rest of the world anything that would force them to radically change their positions. There are now alternative sources of resources for development – a number of people from the former Third World today have money, skills and, to some extent, technology. The West is still ahead of them in many ways, but – and this is fundamentally important – it has now completely lost the desire to share its advantages.

Quite simply because it now fears their competition – the experience of American support for China’s development is considered a mistake by the current elites.

Developing countries are of course interested in Western investment, but the nature of the interaction is also changing. To put it mildly, the old Third World is becoming increasingly demanding and finicky, and the West’s ability to impose its own terms has weakened in the face of large-scale global changes.

The series of meetings in Europe aimed to show that the West is still the undisputed vanguard of the world, which has both the right and the responsibility to lead others. For example, NATO is again trying to become a global organization rather than a regional one.

Russia comments on prospects for expanding UN Security Council

The most recent experience of such a bloc – in Afghanistan – ended in embarrassment. But now the approach is more natural – opposition to Russia.

According to them, Russia is a threat to the security of Western Europe (as it was in the glory days of NATO), but it is also a dangerous pariah for all humanity, so opposing will help expand the US-led club globally. Moreover, the specter of China hangs over, a systemic competitor of the West and, even better, an accomplice of the “Russians”.

How united the Western world itself is for the full implementation of such a mission is a subject for another article. There are a lot of nuances here. However, even assuming that this is the case, there is no reason to think that NATO’s ambition will meet with understanding beyond its borders.

As a result, the broad refusal to recognize the West’s right to rule means that there will no longer be a world order based on Western rules.


Not all news on the site expresses the point of view of the site, but we transmit this news automatically and translate it through programmatic technology on the site and not from a human editor.
Back to top button