FLASH
Shkruar nga Sabino Cassese 
Until recently, large and small states, powerful and weak nations, were in equal positions in many international organizations...
Joseph Nye, one of the most influential scholars of international relations and an associate of President Clinton, believed that the world order would gradually evolve, giving more and more space to “soft power.” The reality is rapidly moving in a different direction.
To understand the type of world order that is emerging, it is important to weigh the size of the various players, their strategies, and the timing of their policies.
Until recently, large and small states, strong and weak nations, were on equal footing in many international organizations. Now the great powers have regained their importance. But the players are unequal giants. It is enough to measure their comparative weight in terms of territory, population and gross domestic product. Russia, with an area of 17 million square kilometers, has a territory almost twice as large as that of the United States and China, while the European Union has half the latter. China, with 1.4 billion inhabitants, is undoubtedly the most populous player, because Europe has a third, the United States a quarter and Russia a tenth of China's population.
If we then move on to gross domestic product, things change again. The United States, with approximately $29 trillion, leads; the European Union and China have a gross domestic product that represents approximately 65 percent of that of the United States, while Russia has just over 8 percent of that of the United States. Thus, the four major players in the global order are very unequal.
In terms of strategies, the common thread between three of the main players is territorial claims to neighboring nations: Russia to Ukraine and many other neighboring countries, China to Taiwan, and the United States to Greenland and Canada. These territorial claims are paradoxical: Donbas, which Russia would like to annex, represents only 0.31% of Russia’s vast territory. Therefore, territorial claims are not important in themselves, but rather as indicators of a desire for power.
As for Europe, Ferruccio de Bortoli is right to complain about its internal divisions and weak voice, while the tension between America and Russia is growing, in which the European Union could remain a prisoner: it is natural for a rising power to be seen as a serious competitor by both America and Russia, especially if it imposes multi-million dollar fines on American companies and helps Ukraine defend itself against Russia. All the more so since it is the part of the world that has developed the welfare state the most: in 2013, Angela Merkel noted that Europe had 7 percent of the world's population, 25 percent of the gross domestic product and 50 percent of global social spending. It is a "rich plate" from which everyone wants to benefit.
Another major change is internal: the great powers are personalizing and privatizing foreign policy, which is being taken away from specialists.
Are the great changes that are taking place only short-term, a flash in the pan that can be quickly extinguished, or do they have a long-term dimension? Observations dating back two centuries show that what is happening was largely foreseen and is now simply accelerating. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1850, when Germany was divided into hundreds of small states: " I believe that our West is under the threat of falling sooner or later under the yoke, or at least under the direct and irresistible influence of the Tsars. I judge that our first interest is to encourage the union of all the Germanic races and to oppose them. The state of the world is new; therefore, our old maxims must change and we must not be afraid to strengthen our neighbors so that they may one day be able to repel the common enemy with us ."
The same author had written in 1835: "Today there are on the earth two great peoples who, starting from different points, seem to be advancing towards the same goal: they are the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown up in obscurity; and, while the eyes of men were elsewhere occupied, they have suddenly been placed at the head of nations, and the world has learned, almost at the same time, of their birth and greatness. All other peoples seem to have reached nearly the limits which nature has traced for them, and have only to hold themselves together; but the Americans and the Russians are growing, while all the others are at a standstill or are advancing only with great difficulty; they are only marching with a light and rapid step along a road, the end of which the eye cannot yet see. The American is fighting against the obstacles which nature opposes; the Russian is fighting with men. The one is fighting desert and barbarism, the other armed civilization with all his weapons: thus the conquests of the Americans are made with the plow of the farmer, those of the Russian with the sword of the soldier. To achieve his goal, the former relies on personal interest and allows the strength and reason of individuals to act, without directing them. The latter concentrates, in a way, all the power of society in a single man. One has freedom as the main means of action; the other slavery. Their starting point is different, their paths are different; yet both seem to be called by a secret plan of Providence to hold one day in their hands the destinies of half the world .
In conclusion, important trends that have existed for a long time, such as the disengagement of the United States from Europe and the pressure of Russia on Europe, are accelerating and becoming more pronounced, and this should teach us that any possible ceasefire will be fragile. At the same time, we are in a difficult transition phase, in which we must strengthen the European Union without severing the ties established over 80 years with America, which are necessary at least until Europe is able to speak with one voice and defend itself without having to buy weapons from the United States./ Adapted from “Pamphlet” by “Corriere Della Sera”
Lini një Përgjigje