Cover image: Being between the anvil and the hammer should lead those who are crushed in the middle to propose a way out. This is the case of Europe, which risks being the real victim of the forced conflict between the USA on one side and CHINA and Russia on the other (without forgetting Iran and some minor cases).
ItalianoINTRODUCTION
Senator Luigi Marino has sent us a very interesting reflection about the critical situation that is trapping Europe between the aggressive attitude of the USA and the reactions of the counterparts, in particular Russia and, more recently, China.
But how did this come about? After the Second World War, the planetary order hinged on the Cold War between the two opposing poles, the United States of America and the Soviet Union. But with the end of the latter the part that has definitely entered into an existential crisis is the United States.
Even his most loyal allies and supporters have found a constructive dialogue with the former “communist” parties logical and desirable, which, to be honest, now have very little or nothing of communism.
Psychology defines “complexed” those who seek an enemy at all costs, because those who cannot live without “enemies” denounce their lack of self-esteem and the need to define themselves through competition with the other and his dominion or destruction, a paradoxical relationship of hate and love based on a spasmodic destructive competition.
In reality, however, the same behavior describes those who have a strong interest in generating conflicts, for reasons of power (divide and rule) or economic reasons, because fear of the other and defense from the supposed “enemy” or counterattack still require tools. (weapons) and there are those who produce them; but also because rebuilding what has been destroyed is another huge source of income.
Admitting the evidence does not mean denying those who, despite boasting of being a historical ally, are actually crushing us. Rather, it means stopping and helping it to find back reason and to accept that we can live together in mutual respect. Ditto on the other side.
And never forgetting that these behaviors, be them due to cynical purposes or psychological disturbs, concern those in power, institutional or behind the scenes, while the respective populations are mere victims, at the most, skillfully manipulated.
The editorial staff
_______________________________________________________________________
THE ARTICLE BY LUIGI MARINO
What advantages in terms of international relations, economic and cultural exchanges can be achieved in continuing a campaign of systematic denigration, if not demonization of China, Russia and other countries?
Naples, June 2, 2020 – What is gained by accepting stubbornly and uncritically hostile positions and attitudes of the U.S. and various followers, who contrast with the today’s increasingly felt need to be a united front against an unprecedented crisis in history and increasingly disturbing scenarios of the post-Covid period, not only from an economic and social point of view with consequent mass unemployment, but also of the democratic endurance?
Yet Europeanists, even those who say they are most convinced of the need to make Europe’s role more incisive and influential in the current international context, should counter the unilateralism of US choices. Even for the defense of their national interests they should support – or at least hope for – every step forward that goes towards building a multipolar world!
The historical paradox, on the other hand, is that in almost all cases and situations, with the exception of the important domestic divergences about Iraq, Libya, etc., the European Union’s foreign policy always ends up embracing the theses and options of the USA, while remaining in a military alliance that even Giulio Andreotti, the many times Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Italy, believed to be outdated by the events that followed the “fall of the Berlin Wall”.
«For what purpose did NATO, which by the way now has gone as far as the borders of Russia, far beyond the borders of the former USSR, had to survive? Perhaps because of its anti-Chinese or anti-Arab function?» Andreotti wondered.
A huge mistake was made with NATO’s enlargement to the east to include Poland, Hungary, the Baltic Republics and others. And unfortunately, as a wise self-criticism should lead to recognize, another mistake was the extension of the E.U. towards East.
What is the real benefit for European countries, when requests for greater contributions to NATO expenses have been made over the past decades by all American Presidents, and still recently by President Trump, who during his tenure has repeatedly claimed additional financial contributions for the maintenance of the military alliance?
Among other things, Trump has sharply criticized the French plan for a European army, unlike the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. The latter, accused among other things by a lot of the national press of being an enemy of the EU, has expressed himself in a completely opposite way. Precisely Putin, interviewed by “la Repubblica” on 12.11.2018, argued that: «The idea of the French President of a European army is sensible and understandable. It is part of the positive process of a multipolar world».
Which means that the Russian Federation would not necessarily count on the dissolution of the E.U., which instead Trump, with his jubilation for the Brexit victory, has shown he wants.
On the contrary, Russia would be well disposed and favorable towards a U.E. less supine, less condescending to the will and geo-strategic interests of the USA: a Union that is not anti-US, but not even anti-Russian, anti-Chinese and anti-Arab.
Even the opposition parties in Russia in fact do not seem to make substantial criticisms of the foreign policy pursued by the government.
And here it should be remembered that China itself does not want a disrupted Europe, not only because it prefers a single and non-fractioned market for its goods or because it has taken steps to establish substantial currency reserves in euros.
For some time, among other things, China has hoped that the dictatorship of the dollar will end, whose continuous emissions end up exporting inflation to the remaining countries.
«We can’t pretend that Russia doesn’t exist. We are making ourselves look ridiculous in Putin’s eyes», Michael Sturmer, former adviser to Helmut Kohl, blurted out in an interview with “La Repubblica” on 12.9.2019.
Any attitude of closure, of misunderstanding of others’ reasons or of hostility from the U.E. towards the Russian Federation, it can only push the latter further east (which also applies to Turkey).
What was defined by Kostantin Leont’ev, Nikolaj Trubeckoj and then by the thinker and theologian Georgy Florovskij a century ago the “Eurasian temptation of Russia” has in fact become the way forward in the face of the persistent closure of Western Europe.
However, this Eurasian choice cannot be traced back to Russia’s “Byzantinism”, nor to the ancient opposition between Westernists and Slavophiles with the victory of the latter, which would not make sense in the changed context.
Russia, given the secular relationships that have taken place, does seem to want to take on the role of “bridge” not only nowadays, and to indicate an alternative and a more spacious perspective of development and a fruitful mutual collaboration with Western Europe, provided that the latter becomes less acquiescent and more autonomous from the choices of the USA.
So who is responsible if Russia will be forced to decide, thus giving up the idea of a relationship with the whole of European countries to favor “bilateral relations”, which have always been preferred by the strongest countries and which historically have never benefited the less strong ones?
Given the current relations, Russia cannot fail to reach the conviction that it is better to focus on bilateral relations more convenient for it. The story of Nord-Stream 2, of the Russian-German agreement strongly opposed by the USA, is emblematic. Russian Federation Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, in response to American sanctions against companies interested in its construction, said that «The pipeline will be completed despite the sanctions that have humiliated European countries». Germany also reacted harshly to this U.S. interference.
In essence, the American attitude is hostile to any other form of fruitful collaboration between the countries of the U.E. and Russia.
Recalling the “great concerns”, already expressed by President Obama, for the accession of Italy and others to the “Belt and road” plan, what is called the “New Silk Road“, it is sufficient in order to summarize all other cases.
The USA fears a power of influence in particular by China and Russia on the economy and foreign policy choices of the E.U. and individual European countries. Hence their angry reaction.
For the E.U. it is not a question of making a fabulous leap from one foot to the other of the Colossus of Rhodes, as in the famous Latin phrase, but “here and now” it’s a question of reaffirming one’s personality to defend one’s interests without suffering further anti-historical and oppressive influences.
________________
