2016 -- THE YEAR THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN.

This year has been a descent into hell.  It ended with the nihilistic outcome of the Aleppo siege under the cover of indifference dressed as Realpolitik. There is no Shakespeare to be found to wash the stain left on the Obama Administration after the "red line" reversal. Despite the disproportionate short-term (falsely) banal-looking impact of Brexit when compared to the Syrian tragedy, it could have lasting irreversible consequences for the future.

Just as 1848 was a watershed (for uneven progress) for Europe, 2016 might well have serious (negative) aftershocks. Then and now the brush fire spreads, torching everything standing in its way.  The British 'No' vote set in motion a chain reaction and a primal scream, heard in all European corners and during the recent ugly American political royal battle.  A movement has been unleashed which looks impossible to contain for the time-being. The danger lies in the amorphous brand of a discontent which is adverse to therapy, since it is a hybrid by nature. It is less geared to a specific set of claims than to an ill-defined overall frustration.   Sociologists and economists have come up with many reasons for this self-destructive malaise:  globalization, the 1% focus (income inequality), growing automation, immigration, terrorism (Xmas is no longer a safe heaven) etc. Taken separately or as a sum, none of those causes can explain the magnitude of the effect.

Western democracies find themselves in some existential struggle for legitimacy. The enemy is no longer a "there", it is a "here". The overall goal of reshaping a Commonwealth of countries united in the pursuit of agreed excellence is no longer considered as desirable. The model of a strong, self-centered leadership has become more attractive than the trans-border ideal of free movement of persons, goods and ideas. Trump's America and the Brexit avatars in Europe are no longer seduced by ambitious architecture. They choose to go topical, local, risk- free and parochial. 

The risks are multiple. If existing alliances or arrangements should never be immune to change, neither should they revert to references which can ignite fires that are hard to extinct. The last American and British upheavals are risky insofar as they are highly combustible and irrational. The vote precedes reflection, the gut takes over reason. Once the deed is done, reverting becomes impossible for an unforeseeable time.  When the more sobering appraisals reappear it will be very hard to correct the damage done.

A lot is being said regarding President Putin's supposed role in all this.  I believe that his "active" participation in current events is less relevant than the choice made by leaders in the US and Europe to procrastinate or to suggest lofty philosophical answers at times when the added value of "soft power" ( a Western monopoly, until now) is being overshadowed by raw "hard power" or by a new mix of ingredients (Chinese style).  Trump in America or the right wave in the EU are no aberrations. Both echo a new Zeitgeist of "shared insecurities". The Hegelian model is questioned and a synthesis between contraries looks out of reach, for now.

To return to Aleppo, the focus of the media and what is overall perceived as another abdication of the West have created a lasting narrative which is marginalizing "competing" stories in i.a. South Sudan, Yemen or Myanmar.   Do media still care about Mosul, since they are so concerned by this geographical small window into hell?

Maybe the West will benefit from a future wake-up call and find a way to reconnect again with the citizen. Washington, D.C. is being taken over by narrow interests. The EU is in Mayday-mode.  As a dispirited NATO moves into its new quarters, Moscow and Beijing sit safe in their existing abodes.  The world is adrift, and the danger is that it might look for safety in whatever harbor provides the best welcome.   Ideas have become an endangered species.