The Two Wars

The Two Wars

By Paolo Falconio 

As increasingly dark shadows gather over a peace in which I place as much hope as I harbor doubts that it can be achieved in the short term, I pause to reflect on the meeting between Trump and Putin. I’ve read many articles referencing the historical and symbolic significance of the chosen location. All valid, but personally, when looking at a map of the countries that have joined the International Criminal Court, Alaska simply appeared to be the safest place for the summit. To put it plainly: a matter of security.

This fact fits into another transversal and internal war within the West. On one side, the liberal international (or the “uniparty” as it’s called in the U.S.); on the other, the resurgence of nationalisms. The liberal international has been negatively marked by an excessive ideological push for multiculturalism (which has also led to a fraying of the social fabric). It applies double standards, using every means against those who do not conform—whether individuals or states. It promotes an ethical vision of international politics (where the “other” is always the villain), which unfortunately lacks real roots, since international politics is always tied to national interest (hence the double standard).

On the other hand, the returning nationalisms are often characterized by excessive intolerance toward difference, and toward institutional rules that safeguard the balance of powers, among other things.

It doesn’t matter what I think or prefer; I simply observe the growing discontent among peoples (which is no trivial matter) toward the multicultural dilution imposed by the liberal international.

Beyond the Ukraine issue, at the Alaska summit I also saw two allies with a very similar vision of national realities: centralized power, multiethnic societies, but with a strong identity and white leadership in cultural and religious terms. This is not mere speculation, because what we call “Trumpism” is not a product of Trump, but of a deep part of America that Trump has come to represent.

In short, forgive me the perhaps excessive paradox, but today I believe the White House sees in Russia something far more recognizable than the European realities of the liberal international, which are considered brain-dead and offering nothing but empty grandiloquence. In this sense, looking ahead, Russia could be seen as the true pillar (even if a competitor) that America needs to maintain its primacy in a world where that primacy is constantly challenged by the new giants of the Indo-Pacific and rising middle powers. Essentially, not a docile ally, but a useful interlocutor to contain Asian expansion and reaffirm a Western vision of power.