I agree with a lot of this piece but this quote strikes me as actually pretty intelligible (certainly not much less intelligible than the other quoted section.)

The idea is that a lot of supposedly radical criticism actually emphasizes a western perspective. There is a theory (the theory of pluralized ‘subject effects,’ whatever that means) which supposedly undermines ‘subjective sovereignty’ I.e. supposedly critiques and attempts to avoid emphasizing a single perspective. But the narrative of European history (presumably according to this theory) is told framed by the ideology of the west while pretending that it isn’t actually framed according to any geopolitical outlook. So this proposed critique of a ‘sovereign subject’ (monarchical language) actually inaugurates (playing on the monarchical language, so elevates to the status supposedly being critiqued) a subject (the West).

So the piece argues that a theory which is supposed to criticize overemphasizing a single perspective actually lionizes the perspective of the west.

I’m probably wrong on some parts of that reading (especially because I have no idea what the subject-effects theory is) but this actually strikes me as a pretty intelligible opener that I would probably understand if I was immersed in the field and/or read the paper.