Isolated Russia is more dangerous – The Unione

One of the reasons for so much confusion in Western public opinion by Donald Trump was the apparent inability of the then US President to bite his tongue. Trump’s departure, apparently completely spontaneous and often contradictory, was all well-calculated and aimed at securing the support of his constituents. Say new under the sun. Silvio Berlusconi’s negligence was somewhat similar. The idea is that the same cannot be said of Joe Biden. The White House’s new tenant is collecting bombing statements.

Within hours, it was first corrected by Macron, who explained to him that there was no need to call Putin a “butcher” if you want to negotiate a deal, and then his own Secretary of State Blinken, who denied it. The goal of the policy sanctions against the Russian economy is to stimulate regime change: to oust Vladimir Putin from the Kremlin. But yesterday, Biden stepped forward during talks in Turkey.

The American president probably thinks that, like all Western leaders, the strong pressure from the media and social media is a place where sympathetic sympathy for the people of Ukraine easily translates into a call for the overthrow of the Putin government “at any cost.” This coincides with a completely normal moral insight, which takes us to the side of the invaders and against the invaders. The problem, however, is that wars are not football matches and too much rejoicing, if it overflows in the speeches of Western political leaders, can further complicate the diplomatic work required to achieve the results we all want: as soon as possible, stop the fire and then a Diplomatic solution.

From this perspective, it is worrying that even large international companies, such as the G20 and the International Monetary Fund, will enter the meat grinder. Biden called on Russia to withdraw from the G20, with Ursula von der Leyen first arguing that it was appropriate to expel the Russians from the International Monetary Fund, and that the OECD had previously suspended Russia and Belarus.

The idea is that the rationale for sanctions should be applied to these entities in any way: marginalizing the Russians, isolating them in every way. Some scholars of international relations argue that in order to understand the politics of a country on the outside, the status recognized by a particular nation is very important. In this context, both “rise” and “fall” forces will be particularly at war, in one case for gaining a certain reputation, in another for compensation for the loss of prestige.

There is no need to share these theories in order to consider this dangerous “sanitary cordon” around Russia. Whatever happens between Ukraine and Russia, the negotiating table will open at one stage and soon better than the next. International institutions are part of a complex architecture that we have built over more than half a century to maintain a continuous dialogue between countries with diverse interests, economic policies and cultural references. On the one hand, the removal of the Russians confirms their superstitions and conspiracy theorists: that the great international organizations are nothing more than the emergence of American hegemony. This in itself weakens them, having a negative impact on everyone in the long run. To explain an old joke, they are the only super-national organization we have. In these places, on the other hand, there is a constant exchange not only between the officials, but also between their sherpads and, more generally, bureaucrats of different levels. These contacts are part of a broader conversation, where you can at least get to know each other a little better.

It is fashionable in newspapers to predict the new Cold War. This should avoid a scenario, not a political goal. Closing the channels of communication meets the popular demand for a “moral” foreign policy, which clearly distinguishes between good and bad. However, this does not help to speed up the process.

The director of the institute said

“Bruno Leoni”

© All rights reserved

Leave a Comment