Historically and culturally, the west is absolutely a meaningful entity.

But the west is far from a single coherent actor.

Even just consider that the hegemon that leads the west has changed from great Britain to the US.

Transportation is much faster now, thus peoples are much closer to each other, so they are united at much larger scale. Few hundreds years ago, two town with few thousands were separate countries. Today European Union acts almost like single 0.5B country. In few hundred years, whole Globe will be united. In transition to Global State, whole continents, or hemispheres will be united first by geographic location, race, or religion.

>Today European Union acts almost like single 0.5B country.

What makes you think so

“Two wrongs don’t make a right” is a moral play. There are definitely cases in history where wrongs made rights, two or more.

Some sort of moral balance has to be achieved before two forces can move forward. It will feel reasonable to both sides when it happens.

Not really - it certainly is wrong to say that because some other country has done XYZ, so now my country have the right to also do XYZ (where XYZ is commonly agreed to be be bad, such as wage war, genocide etc).

Some country might feel that they're justified in what they're doing, because another country previously have done it (and got to a dominant position, perhaps, by doing it). But generally, i dont think this justification is sound, and is an excuse, rather than a real justification. Now of course no country require justification to do what they wish - that is the meaning of having sovereignty, but this also means that other countries must actively stop this sort of practise.

> There are definitely cases in history where wrongs made rights, two or more.

I can quote quite a few cases from history where this kind of thinking has led to the worst kind of atrocities. Especially when one side wants to satisfy a resentment that has been built up over decades or centuries.

Including virtually every major case of genocide from the 20th century that I can think of.

> Some sort of moral balance has to be achieved before two forces can move forward. It will feel reasonable to both sides when it happens.

While, I can think of cases where this would apply when the restoration of balance happens directly after the offense (such as actions taken against Germany and Japan from 1944-1950).

However I wouldn't be able to come up with a single example of such "restoration of balance" successfully happening 100+ years after the initial offense in a way that was seen as reasonable by both sides after.

Would the relationship between Germany and Israel be restored if Israel nuked Berlin, killing 5 million people?

Maybe you can provide your examples?

How has this ever worked out? When I look at the world today every terrible action seems to be the nth wrong to make it right; every terrible active situation looks like continual quid pro quo. For you to say this is necessary over huge time frames with almost infinite players is a bold assertion.