West's deep concern - unwisdom or demagogy? Maxim Petrov's standpoint

Why do statements of deep concern and calls for negotiations often sound hypocritical?

Many people think that negotiations mean a process when someone suggests another person agree on something, for example on the division of spheres of influence, territory, or the destiny of big financial flows. So, they sit down at a round table and decide everything. Maybe I have studied the Middle East too much and overheated in the sun, but I do not understand why this could be so. This is empty talk.

The conversation between competing states/groups in our region begins when they aim heavy weapons and high-precision missile systems at each other. Or one side has lots of weapons, but the other can put a million people on the streets, shut down hundreds of businesses and eliminate the offices of the ruling parties/groups and put them on fire. In this case, there is a chance of having some kind of conversation.

Maybe there is no need to repeat all this every day, but it is enough for opponents to know that you simply have such an opportunity. But without a demonstration of force in this region, no negotiations between rival forces will even begin.

There are three issues of basic importance in politics. The first two were formulated by the German philosopher Carl Schmitt: "What is your goal (what do you want)?" and "Based on that goal, who is your friend and who is your enemy?" Surprisingly simple and precise, right? The third question in general seems so obvious that it's strange that it needs to be spelled out at all, but it turns out that many people don't get it: "What will you do (what can you do)?"

Such a scheme was vividly demonstrated by one of the former Israeli intelligence chiefs of Mossad. When asked about the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians from the Hamas organization that controls the Gaza Strip and that, according to some, it is necessary first, before the negotiations, to demand the disarmament of Hamas, he said: "That's impossible, they won't disarm. After all, if they're no longer a threat to us, i.e. if the possibility of them firing rockets at Israel disappears, why should we talk to them at all? In that case, we will just kill them. And they understand this very well. They will not disarm." The Israelis in this sense can be amazingly frank.

In the Middle East, the sides respond to each other more or less symmetrically. When Saudi Arabia bombs Yemen, Yemeni Houthi rebels respond with cruise missiles and kamikaze drones on Saudi territory - oil refineries, airports, and other key infrastructure facilities, often dual-use facilities, come under their fire. "If you are shelling the territory of our country, then the strikes will inevitably fall on your strategic facilities. - the Houthis say. - What do you mean, by "escalation"? You didn't think that you would just bomb us and your country would remain safe, right?"

The rival countries/groups call each other bad names, but this is when negotiations become possible because at least they speak a language that each other understands. And indeed, there are real opportunities in Yemen today to negotiate a ceasefire.

Maybe somewhere in the unknown future, there will be worlds where things are different. When the actions of people will be based not on competition but on cooperation in a common cause, on symbiosis, because individuals who make up the friendly self-governing collectives will work together in equal conditions to solve common problems - economic and political. But in today's world, in its current state, non-antagonistic relations do not prevail. In practice, when it comes to the politics of states, large companies, and other powerful forces at the top of the social hierarchy, things look as described above. "Justify why I should treat you right, I'm a leader with fighters, money, and connections, and you're a nobody. Why should I talk to you if I have a strong army and you don't? Why should I pay you (for the work you have done) if I сan rip you off? Why should I even consider your interests if I can bomb you and you can't bomb me? What are you going to do to me?"

By the way, if social and political groups and their leaders could just sit at the negotiating table, they would not start anything like this at all - nothing non-negotiable.

At the same time, there are politicians, formed under hothouse conditions in some European countries and the United States, who somehow managed to move up. Having received a good education in universities, they nevertheless say or pretend that the world is different, that everything can be solved peacefully, and that the expression of "deep concern" is the best way to appease the military and political ambitions of the parties. I do not know whether this is unwisdom or blatant demagogy.