Thus, the failure of the Washington-led international order created after World War II stems directly from the failure of Washington to uphold and preserve global peace since the beginning of the 21st century. Russian, Taliban, Burmese, and Chinese assertiveness and actions are the byproduct of this failure to uphold and preserve the peace on the part of Washington. Yet, pundits, talking heads, and so-called intellectuals amongst the mainstream expect the objective world to conform to their narrow intellectual discourse and outlook, rather than broadening and tailoring their narrow discourse and outlook to conform to the objective world and objective reality, which are much broader than the narrow discourse and outlook existing amongst the American mainstream.
There are also the claims and propaganda which suggest that “Russian bombs will fall on Europe” and that “Europe is next” because of Ukraine, which stems more from hysteria than actual history or science. As Odd Arne Westad wrote:
“Unlike the USSR, [Russian and Eastern leaders] are not likely to seek isolation or global confrontation. They will attempt to nibble away at US interests and dominate within their regions. But neither are, by themselves, willing or capable to institute global ideological conflict or militarized alliance systems. Rivalries, most certainly, which may lead to conflicts or even localized wars, but not of the Cold War kind.”
There is also the problem of Washington’s wishful thinking and its denial of novel international realities, part of which is directed at wishing away Russia as a major power in the international system. Westad wrote:
“In hindsight, at least, it is clear that the economic transition to capitalism was a catastrophe for most Russians. It is also clear that the West should have dealt with post-Cold War Russia better than it did. It is hard, however, to specify what alternative paths would have looked like. The key, I think, would have been the realization, so often lacking in the 1990’s, that Russia would under all circumstances remain a crucial state in any international system because of its sheer size.”
Westad added:
“It would therefore have been in the interest of the West, and especially the Europeans, to begin integrating the country into European security and trade arrangements as soon as possible after 1991. Such an approach would have demanded a lot of money and even more patience, given the chaos that reigned in Russia. Some argue that it would have been politically impossible, both within the West and within Russia itself. An effort the size of the Marshall Plan was certainly not in the offing. But both the West and Russia would have been considerably more secure today if the chance for Russia to join the European Union and possibly also NATO in some form had at least been kept open in the 1990’s.”
Hence, the tense and unstable situation in Europe at the present moment. Moreover, Washington’s refusal to acknowledge and recognize novel realities stemming from its failure to uphold and preserve global peace in the 21st century does not spell the end of the world for non-white and non-European peoples. As Vladimir Putin said recently, sanctions and the denial of novel realities translate into new opportunities. After all, with challenges come opportunities. If Washington has not fed people until now, there is nothing to suggest that Washington will feed people in the future. And as someone said, if you were not going to make friends out of us, then you should not have made us into enemies either.
Adam A. Azim 