Andrea Rizzi: "That conversation between Putin and Xi Jinping is very symbolic."

Andrea Rizzi (Rome, 1975) is a journalist and author of The age of revenge (Anagrama), an essay that manages, in just over 150 pages, to conduct an exhaustive analysis of geopolitical transformations, the structural problems of our societies, and the future scenarios they may entail.

Why revenge?

— It's a moment of profound change, reflected in two major currents shared by revenge: the struggle between powers to reconfigure the world order, and the unrest in Western societies exploited by populist leaders.

Regarding powers, the book begins with a very good scene.

— It's very symbolic. A meeting in Moscow between Putin and Xi Jinping in March 2023. In the afternoon, they signed a strategic declaration affirming that democracy and human rights are not universal values. They then held a banquet in a historic hall of the Kremlin, and at the end, Putin accompanied Xi Jinping in the official car. I don't know if they were aware they were being recorded, but the cameras captured the sound. And Xi Jinping tells him: "We are witnessing unprecedented changes; when we are together, we are swaying them."

What unites them?

— The desire to reconfigure the global order and a common enemy, the United States. And other nations like Iran and North Korea converge in this interest. Xi Jinping's declaration has a highly strategic significance. The changes come from the rise of China, but cooperation between the two is key to mastering these changes by these two forces.

Would you say they are winning this battle now?

— We don't know who will win the great battle of the 21st century, the one between Beijing and Washington. But in any case, we know that China has made spectacular economic progress, while Russia is gaining ground with an expansionist project we've seen in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and various activities in Africa. But the key element will be the outcome of the invasion of Ukraine. This will determine whether Putin's imperialist project culminates.

He says the invasion of Georgia is the beginning of what brought us here. Why?

— Because in those years, NATO was considering eastward enlargement, and Vladimir Putin warned Munich at a major conference in 2007 that he wouldn't accept it. And the allies decided to go ahead with the worst possible formula: saying that Georgia and Ukraine would join NATO, but without setting any clear date or guarantees. And Putin acted in the summer of 2008, with no response.

But does China want to change a model that gives it good results?

— China has used the system it has integrated extremely intelligently. But they believe that the West has set the rules of the game and that they must be corrected. A distinction must be made between Russia and China. The latter are not revisionists of the economic order, but of the political order. This is clearly evident when they fail to recognize democracy and human rights as universal values. It is an undermining of the pillars of the system. And China projects a model, through the transfer of technology, but also through exporting a certain model of hypervigilant authoritarianism.

Is the risk for the rest that they endanger democracy?

— Without a doubt. It is essential that citizens in the West, especially in Europe, be aware that there is a very real, present, and current risk to our democracies, because there is a deliberate desire to weaken them by countries that see them as an existential threat. For authoritarian countries, the assertion of a neighboring democracy is a challenging comparison. This is one of the reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine. It was highly problematic for a prosperous, vibrant, and modern democracy to consolidate in a neighboring country with which they had a shared history. Their own population would have asked many questions. That is why they seek to weaken democracies with disinformation and by sowing discord.

And here we come to the second element I mentioned: populism in Europe.

— The national-populist far-right is not a unitary bloc; it's not Orbán or Meloni, but as a whole it does emerge from a malaise that has been brewing in our societies, largely due to the errors of an excessive, unbridled capitalism that has not been adequately reined in by the policies of social democratic parties. Globalization and the technological revolution have caused unfavorable phenomena for large segments of the working classes, who have found themselves in precarious situations and have seen certain expectations shattered. And this has generated resentment, both material and with very legitimate elements of protest, and the induced cultural malaise, which I consider unacceptable and which has traits of xenophobia.

But they don't solve the underlying causes, do they?

— That's why I speak of a hypnosis process. Trump is the paradigmatic example. He came to power thanks to the support of significant segments of the working class. During his first term, he implemented a tax reform that favored the richest 1% of the population, and they voted for him again. Why? For me, the hypnosis process is a modern version of the old propaganda game. Mobile phones, social media, and AI help him, with a hypnosis of discernment.

But then are those who vote for him donkeys?

— We must avoid the paternalistic temptation. I trained in law, but if you talk to me about chemistry, I run the risk of misinterpreting reality. And this happens in many areas. There are powerful tools for manipulating minds. We are in the midst of a huge global cognitive battle, and we don't have all the tools we need, from educational systems to media ecosystems. It's not that people are stupid, but perhaps we are not equipped to resist certain mechanisms of manipulation.

Does the crisis of democracy have to do with the crisis of the written press?

— Quite a bit. We're in crisis with legalized intermediation systems. The press, political parties, and unions... And with the crisis of trust, the manipulation of those who promise revenge is easier. Trump said it directly: I will be your revenge. And we're in a polarizing spiral that's reached the point where obvious truths are no longer accepted as such.

For example?

— Trump said that immigrants ate pets. If the New York Times He denies it, I'm sure that a part of society believes Trump more than the newspaper.

And Trump is an ally of China and Russia?

— What he's done, for the moment, objectively favors Russia's interests and puts pressure on Ukraine. The situation with China is complex. He's launched an extremely harsh trade war. But he seems less determined to support Taiwan than Biden, and this is a nuclear issue for China. And I think that ultimately, indirectly, it benefits both sides, because it's breaking the key tool for American power projection in the world for decades: the network of alliances it has had with European and Asian countries, which is unmatched by any other time in history. And Trump is destroying it at stratospheric speed.

Trump has gone hand in hand with the tech moguls. What's the risk?

— When Biden left office, he said he feared the emergence of a political-business conglomerate in the technology sector that could create an unprecedented galaxy of power. This is the question: the eventual alliance between technopreneurs and populist leaders with authoritarian tendencies. The effect on our democracies could be devastating. And we need to be aware and resist the onslaught, both collectively and individually.

What do you think about when you think about the future?

— There are very serious threats that have not yet been fully understood in all their complexity and danger. But a united Europe can confront these threats and can be a driving force in the international response. And I have faith in the instinct that exists within each of us, which is to rebel against injustice. But injustice must be perceived to trigger the feeling of rebellion.