Nearly 150 neutral states of the world condemn the Russian aggression, yet they do everything to sabotage the Western sanctions system. Why? Note by Robert C. Castel.
How could the West be left alone? It is well known that the world rallied behind NATO against Russia. It is well known that the public opinion of the world unanimously condemns the Russian aggression. It is well known that Putin's adventurist policy has been broken by wall-to-wall international sanctions. It is well known that nearly two hundred states in the world want nothing more than to return to the safety of the rules-based international system.
All this is common knowledge, but it's just not true.
Let's take a closer look, who are those who support Russia in this war? Belarus, China, Pakistan, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and some ex-Soviet "…stans".
Who are those who support Ukraine and NATO? Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
This list is very subjective, two or three more committed or less committed allies could easily be added to both sides.
However, all this does not change the fact that, despite "common knowledge",
barely three dozen countries fully oppose Russian aggression and barely a dozen support it.
It is time to ask the question that most analysts, political scientists and journalists in the world have tried so hard to avoid: What is the rest, approx. With 150 states? How do they see this conflict and why didn't they hide behind the "common knowledge"? Would it only be about the boringly mentioned oil interests?
The first unpleasant truth we are forced to admit is that
when we talk about "world public opinion," we're usually talking about these fewer than three dozen states.
In fact, maybe even less than that, because you like it, you don't like it, let's say:
The opinions of most small and medium-sized nations do not carry much weight in lat.
World public opinion primarily refers to the Anglo-Saxon countries. Their voice is disproportionately amplified by the possession of an international language. The second important component of world public opinion: The European continental powers relying on their population and economic power. The third important component is the narrow, globalized elite, whose representatives can be found everywhere.
That's it.
If the world state were to be realized once and - due to some structural error - were to have a democratic system, the "public opinion of the world" would fall behind in every single vote. This is one of the reasons why big dreamers never dream of more democracy, but only of a more efficient administration.
The second unpleasant truth is that the rules-based international system does not enjoy undivided popularity, even among the privileged "Three Dozen Club". This system is not based on the spontaneous triumph of higher moral ideals, but on American hegemony dominating a unipolar world.
All the political and economic advantages of a rules-based international system, the reduction of wars and poverty worldwide, and the rise of democracy and human rights, combined, have not made this arrangement universally popular. Why? Because even those who benefited the most economically and politically from it cannot forgive the fact that it is a world order that was imposed on them from the outside and whose ideals and principles are very selectively applied.
And the third unpleasant truth is that nearly 150 neutral states in the world are at least as afraid of Western vehemence as they are of Russian aggression.
A significant part of these countries were reliable allies of the USA and the West for many decades. Russian rapacious warfare and expansionism fills them with fear and they would like nothing more than to see Russia's power weakened before the aggression even reaches their shores.
For decades, Russia played the role of the "spoiler", the troll of "Pál Rontó" in the international system. The Russian mine work tried to undermine American influence, but the whip usually cracked not on the USA, but on its regional allies.
If all this is true, then why don't neutrals support the West's crusade against Russian aggression?
Because the manic depressive visceral reactions of the West are at least as frightening and terrifying to them as the coldly calculating Russian aggression. In the eyes of these countries
the West does not act as a rational player against the continental predator, but as an unpredictable and vehement force that cannot even control itself.
The mood swings of the Western public opinion caused by the climate crisis and BLM incite irrational waves of hatred, to which long-dead Russian composers fell victim just like the fundamentally libertarian Russian artists and athletes who rejected the war. The Russian-hatred that has become fashionable has created a new and virulent form of racism, which in the eyes of the progressive West is considered the main original crime, provided that it is committed by someone else. The leaders of the neutral states look in shock at the Western politicians who, instead of leading, act like marionette puppets of an infantile public unable to think rationally about war.
German policy regarding arms shipments to Ukraine are just one example among many. American and European companies, which should primarily look after the interests of their own shareholders, have become political players and are waging a private war against the Evil Empire. The sanctions policy of the West also looks more like blind cutting than a well-thought-out exercise of economic warfare. The rational calculus has completely disappeared, replaced by the ferocious fury of the desire to harm. And nobody counts own goals for a long time. Seeing everything, what can the leader of 150 neutral countries say to himself?
That if this is what the restoration of the rules-based world order looks like, then thank you very much, we would rather not ask for it.
We do not have a problem with the goals of the West, but with the way in which it seeks to achieve them. After all, what is the guarantee that we will not be the next targets of the Western Crusaders? If the Orwellian "two minutes of hate" proves to be an effective weapon against Russia, the West may conclude that it has found a tool to reshape the world in its own image.
In the future, failure to ratify a climate agreement may constitute casus belli. Either perceived or real atrocities committed against a group of victims suddenly plucked from somewhere and dusted off. Perhaps heretical energy policy, favoring one type of energy over another…
These are the fears for which the 150 neutral countries will do everything to thwart the West's political, economic and cultural sanctions policy against Russia. Even those willing to help militarily contain Russian aggression will do their best to sabotage other forms of Western crusade.
In 2022, the West was left alone.
This fact was concealed by our own internal propaganda just as effectively as Russian internal propaganda concealed the true nature of the war in Ukraine. It is time to finally recognize the reality and think about what we should do so that the 150 neutral countries catch up with the West.
The first and most important thing to do: Return to the ground of rationality and self-restraint. The West must convey the message to neutral countries that the reins are in responsible and sane hands.
The second: Re-formulating the goals of the new Cold War and embarking on a de-escalation path vis-à-vis Russia.
The third: We must cool down the war rhetoric and try to speak to the Russian people, driving a wedge between them and the Russian political leadership.
The fourth: To consult with neutral countries and address them with requests, instead of threats and dictates.
And the fifth: to take the figure much more modestly. The vast majority of the world's countries thank you very much, they don't ask for the culture war, radical social ideologies and world-transforming ideas that are flooding the West.
The West must focus on the few ideals that form the foundations of its own civilization. You have to pave the way for these with patience and moderation. If this turn does not occur and the West does not manage to pull itself out of the quagmire it has stirred up by its own hair, then the long war against the dictatorships of the 21st century will be very lonely.
Featured Image: Billy Galligan
