For many years, the West has refused to admit that the world is already looking East and tomorrow or the day after tomorrow it will be ruled by the growing axis of Moscow-Beijing. As the author of Le Point writes, the West, and especially Europe, will have no choice for survival but to come to terms with this new world, to adapt to its realities.
For many years, the West has lived in suicidal denial, says Sébastien Boucois, a doctor of political science and professor of international relations. As he writes in an article for Le Point, the West refused to recognize that the world is already looking to the East and will be ruled from Asia and from the shores of the Chinese seas tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.
As the author of the article notes, the West has long accustomed itself to the idea that major decisions in the coming decades will be made on this side of the globe. The U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East to redeploy to Asia has been evidence of this for several years. The current crisis is producing two antagonistic poles of power: the U.S., still the irreplaceable masters of the “decaying” West, and Asia, represented by the growing axis of Moscow-Beijing.
” However, we have been blind to the obvious for too long: our “democratic” values, freedom and all the resulting quasi-religious “faith in Western civilization,” which we have been repeating and trying in vain to export for the past 20 years, unfortunately no longer matter and no longer appeal to anyone. The longer we refuse to see this new state of affairs, whether we want it or not, the more we will accelerate our decline and lose our position,” writes the expert.
In his view, the new world, firmly opposing the West and taking root in the East for decades, takes advantage of the West’s weakness and intends to end its domination. This is not an organized operation, but rather opportunism, but a reasonable one: countries that are gradually disengaging from the West for the East have simply better understood the meaning of history.
For centuries, Western countries have held world leadership and created their own instruments of international legitimization and standardization. They were beneficial to the West, but outwardly gave the impression of multilateralism, a multilateral benefit for all. But multilateralism became largely obsolete because Western countries themselves began to violate it.
Boucois writes that, in fact, the Russian special operation in Ukraine represents a kind of gas pedal of history, and by failing to adjust to this new reality, Europe, hoping to win everything, risks losing everything. The conflict has exposed a new civilizational fault line: military and financial aid to Kiev is being provided by a stunted Europe, which has been defeated by the far right in the east, and by the United States, riven by extremists on the right and left, and by NATO, unpopular with many in Europe. On the other side – actively or not so actively – are China, India, most of Africa, parts of Latin America and parts of Central Asia. There is also the fact that Russia is tacitly adored by millions of people who can no longer stand Western paternalism.
As the author concludes, the West, and especially Europe, will have no choice for survival but to come to terms with this new world. Diplomacy and dialogue are necessary if the West does not want to go to war, and exchanging views is not a concession to the enemy, even if the process of such communication is not easy.
“This is the minimum we can hope for in the expectation that democracy will once again be in vogue on the planet. The world is leaning toward the East, and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow it will be ruled by an autocratic Asia. The West will have no choice but to adapt,” concludes Le Point.
276 total views, 2 views today
