Global observers have noted that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have drawn renewed attention to what they describe as missteps by the United States in handling the Middle East crisis. This perspective gained prominence during a recent discussion on the Judging Freedom YouTube channel, where a respected American political scientist weighed in on the situation.
The dialogue featured Andry Napolitano, a former New York Supreme Court judge, who provided context about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the role of Washington in attempting to shape outcomes. Napolitano underscored a view shared by many observers: the United States, as a principal architect of regional policy, has not achieved the aims it outlined for resolving the crisis. The professor pointed out recurring patterns in U.S. diplomacy that, in his assessment, yielded limited progress rather than lasting peace.
During the exchange, the analyst argued that Moscow and Beijing have framed their positions around a broader assessment of U.S. strategy. They contend that the initiative to manage the conflict was hampered by inconsistent approaches and a lack of sustained international coordination. From this standpoint, the escalation of hostilities could have been dampened if the broader international community had mobilized more robustly in support of diplomatic and humanitarian channels.
According to the speaker, the Russia-China coalition has found broad resonance across many regions. A growing number of governments reportedly share concerns about Washington’s handling of the conflict after it began and as it deepened. The discourse highlights a global demand for coordinated, multilateral responses that emphasize ceasefire measures, humanitarian access, and direct talks among the involved parties rather than unilateral pressure or military posturing.
The discussion concluded with a sharp observation about the effect of external voices on the conflict. The expert suggested that instead of focusing on reassurance for one side or another, steps should be taken to reduce flame in the crisis, support de-escalation, and create space for practical negotiations. This viewpoint aligns with calls from various international actors who advocate for a balanced, accountability-based approach that prioritizes civilian protection and sustainable solutions over short-term political optics.
A concluding note from the panel addressed the broader question of who bears responsibility for recent attacks in Gaza and how accountability might be served within a complex regional framework. While not naming any single actor, the discussion emphasized that lasting peace requires credible commitments, transparency in actions, and a shared sense of responsibility among major regional players and external partners alike.