We Know How Reliable the West Is, But Are There the East?

It was the night of Saturday, 21 June 2025, when The Hague—the Dutch capital—buzzed in anticipation of the NATO annual meeting. Western media simultaneously reported President Donald Trump boasting about a successful United States airstrike against three so-called Iranian nuclear sites. The chain of events had begun on 13 June 2025, when Israel, without provocation, launched a raid on Tehran, the capital city of Iran. Iran retaliated, and both sides suffered deaths and casualties.

The world is left to ponder: Did Israel calculate this attack knowing full well they had an ally in the White House willing to back them at all costs? President Trump’s responses during interviews about the United States’ stance on this conflict have been nothing short of conflicting. At first, he urged Iran to return to the negotiating table. Yet when pressed further on whether the United States planned to strike Iran, Trump declared that U.S. intelligence “knows the hideout of Iran’s Supreme Leader,” though, in his words, “we do not have immediate plans to kill him yet.”

Then on 20 June 2025, when asked again whether the United States intended to become directly involved in the escalating conflict, Trump remarked that he had “two weeks to think about it.” However, less than 24 hours after making that statement to the media, American B-52 bombers executed strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. This sequence raises significant questions not only about the reliability of American promises but also about how such military interventions are decided and justified under international law.

This is not the first time the United States and its allies have misled the world under the guise of protecting global security. In the early 2000s, President George W. Bush, supported by then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, falsely accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Their allegations led to the invasion of Iraq, the toppling of Saddam Hussein, and the destruction of an oil-rich nation. The term “rebuild” was widely misused; what followed was not rebuilding but rather prolonged instability and suffering. In 1996, then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu testified before the U.S. Congress, reinforcing claims of Iraq’s WMD programs. History has since confirmed these claims were fabrications.

Turning to the Second World War, the United States initially chose not to intervene in the European conflict. Several factors influenced this position, including isolationist policies, the economic strains of the Great Depression, and strong public sentiment against becoming entangled in another European war. However, this stance changed dramatically after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The United States entered the war against the Axis Powers, but even then, it was the Soviet Union’s Red Army that bore the brunt of the fight against Nazi Germany. Historians agree that without the Soviet offensive on the Eastern Front, defeating Hitler would have been far more challenging. The Soviet Union suffered approximately 27 million deaths—more than all other Allied nations combined. Yet, for over 80 years since the war ended, the United States and its Western allies have dominated the narrative, celebrating their victory over Nazi Germany as if the East’s sacrifices were insignificant.

Over the decades, Russia and China have positioned themselves as counterweights to American and Western power, both economically and militarily. Yet, it remains debatable whether Russia and China possess the combined military might necessary to confront the full force of America and its allies. While many nations in the Middle East and Africa enjoy Russian backing, history demonstrates that Russia has not consistently defended these partners when confronted by the West. This pattern invites skepticism about whether Russia or China would genuinely support Iran if the conflict with the United States and its allies escalates further.

The case of Iraq serves as a poignant example. During the 1990-1991 Gulf War, following Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz assured the world that Iraq would retaliate against any U.S. aggression. In reality, Iraq’s threats amounted to nothing more than empty rhetoric. The coalition forces led by the United States swiftly expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait with minimal resistance.

In today’s world, similar dynamics are unfolding in West Africa. Recent coups in several Francophone countries have seen young military leaders oust France-backed administrations accused of corruption and ineffectiveness. These leaders have sought support from Russia, whose involvement in the region has grown. France and its allies are undoubtedly unsettled by these developments, having lost strategic footholds in resource-rich territories. But can Russia, already embroiled in a protracted war of its own, truly extend effective military or political support to these new governments if France or other Western allies decide to intervene militarily or economically?

The balance of global power seems, once again, to rest on might rather than right. Despite the lofty principles espoused by international law, including the United Nations Charter’s emphasis on sovereignty, non-intervention, and peaceful resolution of disputes, the reality remains: power still resides with the strongest actors. Western interventions, whether in Iraq, Libya, or now potentially Iran, often proceed with little regard for international norms when they believe their security or economic interests are at stake. The question is whether the so-called Eastern powers, particularly Russia and China, can or will challenge this pattern meaningfully—or whether they, too, will resort to platitudes while allowing the West to dictate global affairs.

What is clear is that the international community must reckon with these realities. The existing global order, shaped largely by Western military and economic dominance since the end of the Second World War, is increasingly being tested. But unless the Eastern bloc demonstrates genuine capacity and willingness to defend its partners—not merely through rhetoric but through tangible action—the status quo will persist.

Thus, the question remains: Is the world destined to remain one where power lies solely in the hands of the strongest? And if so, what hope exists for smaller nations yearning for genuine sovereignty and protection under international law? The answers may shape the course of global politics for generations to come.

By Lewis Kwame Addo
Amsterdam