Great Britain’s official exit from the European Union has underlined some lingering problems that the West faces. It became clear that this was no coincidence. Undoubtedly, the big nations of Europe would do anything for the sake of their geopolitical interests. Brexit, in a way, was one of the reactions to that. Those who constantly preach democracy, human rights, cooperation and justice suddenly changed faces. Now the other big countries in Europe speak of getting rid of Britain as soon as possible and emphasize the fact that there is no turning back for the British. Yet the geopolitical interests and double standards that have pushed Britain outside of the EU remain, meaning that disintegration would continue. In general, Europe’s geopolitical, political and cultural stagnation is worsening. What is next?
Experts analyze geopolitical outcome of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union and make certain predictions. Particular attention is given to the core reasons. This happened for a reason – an outcome of the processes brewing in the Western political environment. View of this issue in the broad geopolitical sense reveals that Brexit will have more profound impact for the West than other negative elements observed until now.
In the geopolitical sense, the most fascinating part is that this step taken by Britain comes at a time when Europe has already transformed into an independent geopolitical power. For several years already, German Chancellor has explicitly been speaking of this issue at the Munich Security Conference and this has been evident in the actions of the German government. Indeed, such a situation puts pressure on Britain and France because historically they have had their say across the continent, with scores settled between them still fresh in the memory. Yet Germany is Europe’s largest economy and gradually the union bends under its weight.
At first glance, London just like the others should have been pleased by the EU’s leading role in the international affairs. This is why experts are convinced that it is all about resurging British imperial ego. Namely, Britain’s imperial past and prowess fueled its desire to demand special privileges outside of the limits of federal cooperation. In this connection, the British consider themselves superior not just in Europe but in the world, whereas in reality, it only had only paved the way for disintegration. In Churchill’s terms, it once again proved that Britain had no lasting friends, only lasting interests. Brexit in this sense is certainly interesting from the geopolitical perspective. Today in Europe, Brexit can be regarded as a factor that propels disintegration processes.
Revisiting the past would be useful. In the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in the 1990s, the Western politicians started propagating integration. One of the first lectures was multiculturalism. Now it is obvious that it was poorly prepared facultative course because those who recommended tolerance, embracing other cultures and unification, themselves failed to accomplish that.
First, European politicians became inconsistent on the issue of multiculturalism and claimed that the project was unsuccessful. Then Europe’s core nations started to drift apart. Brexit demonstrates that although the narrative is about the dialogue of different cultures, in real life, no one was ready to accept geopolitical ambitions of others. Therefore, since the fall of Soviet Union, the West has started to lose its international influence as well as confidence of others, and the process is ongoing. It has gotten to such a point that experts admit – not only that the West and Europe fail to comply with the international law, they even view it as something embarrassing. Events unfolding in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and elsewhere testify to that.
In the Middle East, the innocent people are losing their lives in their thousands, while many more are compelled to abandon their homes. Meanwhile, the West does not just fail to come to their aid and restore their rights. These people are not regarded as humans, they are being humiliated, and special programs are devised to reject the migrants. Muslim migrants are insulted at the level of political leaders. There are being degraded and their rights are trampled. The situation is similar in the inter-state relations. Yet one thing is certain – the countries that engender these processes and problems are the same ones that seek to rectify them.
In this context, the policy of double standards has become business as usual for the West and Europe. The attitude towards the conflicts in the South Caucasus is a telling example. It is the West that attempts to mask Armenia’s aggressiveness, provides political and economic backing to the separatists, arranges their travel and protects them from sanctions. Resolutions and documents adopted by the international organizations are being ignored, as if they were never adopted. It is no secret that for the past 20 years, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, actually tasked with mediation for the resolution of Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict, have in fact, been defending Armenia. Instead of putting the aggressor in its place, they occasionally resort to provocations against Azerbaijan. They are busy with hampering Azerbaijan from liberating its occupied lands. This is the harsh reality.
In the meantime, who are the ones that support the so-called ”color revolutions” and other processes that annihilate the national statehood is some countries? Western “democrats” of course! This clearly shows that today the posture of some state leaders wishing to exercise world control and those who buttress them is strategically perilous. Indeed, there is a particular reason for that. In the West, the notions of justice, objectivity and international law, are replaced with priority given to geopolitical interests. For example, when it comes to the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict, the problem is viewed solely from the perspective of geopolitical interests.
Otherwise, serious effort would have been made to ensure implementation of four UN Security Council resolutions. They would have also demanded that official Yerevan withdraws from the occupied territories. Why is it that Libya was bombed immediately after the UN SC adopted a respective resolution and Syria has been destroyed but no one seems to force tiny Armenia to release the occupied land? Even a novice would not fall for that because in reality, the West is unfair and is driven by own geopolitical interests, and this trend endures.
Even the Pope acts like such a politician. He visits occupier Armenia and sends out the message of genocide to the world. This equates to the appeal of support to Armenia. Here we are – religious leader visits the country that has blood of thousands of Muslims on its hands and stands as source of terror in the region. And yet the Pope asks God to protect it. What does that supposed to mean?
While in Yerevan the Pope claims that the Christians are oppressed. Where and by whom? He talks about the Armenian “genocide” but fails even mentioning the victims of the Armenian terrorism. If the Christian Pope has no memory issues, he could have at least alluded to the victims of genocide perpetrated in Khojaly against the Muslims in the not-so-distant history. Instead, he sends the message to the Christian world that they must reach to the Armenian separatists that destroy the Muslim culture and help them develop. The Pope, being a genuine religious figure, should have avoided visiting a country that has occupied the neighbor’s land and murdered thousands of innocent people, including elderly, women and children. Even if he did, he should have conveyed some elements of truth to fellow religious figures there. Well, he chose not to. Yet this attitude’s political aspect is thought provoking. Should not there be a difference between the Catholic Pope and the politicians obsessed with the geopolitical interests?
Apparently, Brexit is a legitimate process. It shows how failed the Western policy, worldview and ideology is. The primary reason is that in the past three decades, the West/Europe has been unable to produce a just and constructive attitude in the processes encountered by different countries in the international relations. Their ambitions aimed at securing supremacy in all areas are not sufficient to shape the world order. Let us not forget that excess of those ambitions could have a boomerang effect.
