Phantom pains of London
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted in the article "On Law, Rights and Rules" that the Geneva agreements of the Presidents of Russia and the United States on a substantive dialogue on issues of strategic stability, inadmissibility of nuclear war, as well as on other key issues, are possible on the basis of a balance of interests.
But the balance does not work because Joe Biden turned out to be sitting on three chairs at once. At the end of his negotiations in Geneva with Vladimir Putin, even participants in the meeting from the American side began to broadcast the previous installations. The republican opposition and some fellow Democrats were attached to the preliminary agreements. London, having not come to the attention of the leaders of Russia and the United States in Geneva, rudely declared itself, risking zeroing the results of the summit, the correspondent of The Moscow Post reports.
The world resembles the relationship of an organized group with dissenting, but influential and independent opponents. The conversation is "according to concepts." The leaders of the two nuclear powers are discussing in Paris the global prospects of a third nuclear power. At this time, the fourth nuclear power - not untied in status - arranges a provocation in the territorial waters of Russia. Specifically, it gives instructions to the ship of the Royal Navy to violate the maritime border of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the "Englishwoman" refers to the fact that the naval fortress, which her troops once stormed, for some reason again "ended up" in Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, meanwhile, discussed the results of two decades, extended the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation, which underlies the relations of "comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation," noted the absence of territorial claims, noted the stabilizing role of Russian-Chinese coordination in world affairs.
These negotiations, held behind closed doors, will cause interruptions and suspicions in the "Western family," which was called the foreman of the project for the construction of a future world. The question is, who is in charge of this "construction mafia"? Maybe London?
Great Britain is not afraid, but escapes
The most "inventive" member of the UN Security Council plays another provocation on which the fate of the world could depend. Everything is done to "pump" its own importance and to funny primitively. There is no explanation required - you will find everything in the secret materials, prudently "left" - no, not in the taxi... and at the bus stop!
In this regard, the state corporation of the Air Force was entrusted with the role of both a "whistleblower" and an instructor. So do not give in to illusions about the planned "objectivity" of the Air Force correspondent, who was on board the destroyer "HMS Defender." And the "bus" materials contained a detailed instruction to the participants of the Sea Breese maneuvers about the meaning of the event. But in the folder with secret documents was also a clue to the Washington "inexpensive" about Afghanistan. All right, just in case, for persuasion.
London, as a member of NATO and the Group of Seven, for some reason decided that the results of the meeting between the presidents of the United States and Russia were not a decree, adding a spoon of unpredictability to what the presidents in Geneva agreed to consider strategic stability. We can even say that Her Majesty's fleet in something zeroed in the results of Geneva. Moreover, London cast a shadow on the US president, showing his weakness and unreliability, and maybe a tendency to multi-way intrigues, which is even worse.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is entitled to consider himself a master of shocking assessments and journalistic intrigue. Working in Brussels as a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, he said that everything he wrote "had such an amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party," gave a rather strange "sense of power."
As a journalist by profession, and by vocation a fanatical fan of Winston Churchill, the only "savior of civilization" in the last century, Boris Johnson, becoming a politician and prime minister who received power, considers himself the leader of the fate of the world. What he cares about the opinion of Joe Biden, the villagers and politics of the academic type, especially the interests of Paris and Berlin. Johnson chooses a frivolous but bright "movement"!
As in the Skripals case, the "seminar" for NATO students was successfully held, collective instructions were sent out through the Air Force service. London once again showed the world, including the United States, imperial grip, created the illusion of reviving its international power. But Britain ignores the gap between its claims and reality just as Prime Minister Johnson ignores the gap between Churchill's writing talents and the realities of the outcome of World War II.
What about Biden?
Back in September 2018, the Albion ship of the British Navy passed in the immediate vicinity of the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea to demonstrate the right to "freedom of navigation." Then China made a submission to the UK, urging London to stop such actions. Now, after provocation, the destroyer HMS Defender will rejoin the carrier strike group with the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth at the head and go to the South China Sea.
The United States and itself have left the former metropolis, testing from time to time China's determination to protect its interests and territorial waters in the South China Sea. The confrontation between the parties in the region has been going on for more than a year, they are conducting maneuvers. The situation is worsened not only by exercises, but also by the regular passage of American warships through the South China Sea.
Two weeks ago, the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan entered this area as part of a strike group. In a statement by the 7th US Fleet, reference was made to freedom of navigation in the region, through which up to a third of world maritime trade passes, a third of world crude oil trade and half of world LNG flows. It is missed that nine to ten of these flows have nothing to do with the United States.
The passages of American warships, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, violate international law, undermine China's sovereignty and security. Despite the protests, Washington insists that American gunboats will appear wherever allowed by international law.
In particular, the US Secretary of State, while in Paris, said that the goal of Western Chinese policy is not to deter China, but to maintain a system that is free and open, based on the rules and standards established by the results of World War II. The US and the West will have more influence, approaching China collectively, rather than acting alone. The convergence of positions on this issue was reflected in the final documents of the summits of the Group of Seven, NATO, the USA - the EU. "For us, the idea is to, together with allies and partners, support a free system not against China, but for the sake of a positive vision of the future and relations between our countries," said the US Secretary of State.
Who and what interferes with you may ask a question of perplexing Chinese? Interferes with China, this is a short answer. Anthony Blinken and Emmanuel Macron proposed a detailed version of the answer to counter the emergence of a world order led by China, which is charged with assertively promoting its economic interests through the One Belt One Way program. NATO is also engaging in China's deterrence through a strategy of multilateral cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.
For some reason, it is considered unacceptable for the American elite if China in the future can become the first superpower in terms of its combined power. According to Chinese estimates, this could happen by the middle of this century. In terms of economic volumes, the first step has already been taken, China is ahead of the United States in terms of GDP in terms of purchasing power parity. In the field of technology, Beijing is overcoming the restrictions imposed by Washington. In the military field, too, there is a build-up, which is especially worrying for the United States.
Actually, nothing unusual happens. Only eight decades have passed since the United States surpassed the former metropolis in all these indicators, as London turned to Washington for help in the face of fascist aggression. At the same time, Washington did not regret the collapse of the British Empire at all, somewhere even contributed to this process. And now is the time to cede the role of leader to China, at least in some areas. And it seems that the time has come for Beijing to coordinate its interests and actions even more closely with those of Moscow.
Speaking at the Moscow Conference on International Security, the Chinese Minister of Defense said: "It is time for us to jointly confront the United States, defend the international system led by the UN, a world order based on international law, and support the central role of the UN in international affairs."
Sergey Lavrov agrees with this approach, noting with regret that "the documents of Cornwall and Brussels establish the advancement of the concept of a" world order based on rules "in contrast to the universal principles of international law, enshrined primarily in the UN Charter." Western plans to force Russia and China to follow their own Western preferences.
Questions are raised here about the United States, as a charter member of the United Nations, which hosted the organization's headquarters, but has traditionally been in tense relations with it. What will happen to this "anchor of democracy, peace and security," internally divided by political contradictions, with the BLM bone smoldering inside America, ethnic shifts in the electorate?
How will sanctions be applied in the interest of "supporting democracy around the world" and what will be the reaction to this outside the countries of the "golden billion"? It is not clear how the Baltic dwarves, Poles or the Kiev elite with their ultra-radical and neo-Nazi features will be written into the company of "donor countries of democracy."
It is only understandable that demanding equality and democracy in international affairs from the collective West is useless. At the same time, as Sergey Lavrov stated in his article, "under the hopes of playing with us in one goal, the line is finally brought," Russia will not make the concessions required by the West for the sake of economic benefits. In the meantime - and this should be admitted - the phantom pains of London once again slowed down the movement towards predictability in relations between Russia and the West.