Mihail Morozov, "Trud" columnist

Author: Mihail Morozov, "Trud" columnist

Friendship is not against the USA, but for the sake of common interests

Xi Jinping, China's leader, is to pay a state visit to Moscow early next week. Here are the words from the transcript of the Russian-Chinese talks last December 30, published on the Kremlin website: "We are expecting you, dear Mr. President, dear friend, we are expecting you next spring with a state visit to Moscow," Vladimir Putin said to Xi Jinping during the videoconference. In general, this could be regarded as quite an ordinary event. Mutual contacts between the Russian and Chinese leaders take place regularly, usually two visits a year, excluding meetings on the margins of international summits. According to Chinese Ambassador to Russia Zhang Hanhui, there have been about 40 such reciprocal visits since 2013, when Xi Jinping became the head of the country. But today is a special situation. First, this visit is the first foreign trip of the Chinese president since his reelection to his third term. In diplomatic practice, this is considered a signal: this direction of foreign policy is regarded as a priority. The fact that Xi's trip to Moscow will take place during the acute phase of the special military operation that Russia is conducting in Ukraine, essentially fighting for its interests against the collective West, adds a special character to the trip. The trip also has great significance against the background of the sharp deterioration of relations between China and the United States and the intensification of Western sanctions against Beijing. In this regard, there is a widespread version that the Chinese leader will "promote" the proposed plan for the peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. It is written that this plan is allegedly not beneficial to Russia. Well, the Chinese peace proposals may become a topic of discussion during the upcoming Russian-Chinese talks. Chinese diplomacy has just been brilliantly demonstrated by the reconciliation of bitter enemies, Saudi Arabia and Iran. An agreement for the full restoration of diplomatic relations between these countries was signed in Riyadh under the mediation of the head of the CPC Central Committee's Foreign Affairs Commission, who moved to that post upon the completion of his tenure as China's foreign minister. "The deal brokered by China overturns Middle East diplomacy and challenges the United States," said the New York Times in its assessment of Chinese peacemaking efforts. So why shouldn't China mediate on Ukraine as well? Another widespread version of the main theme of the talks says that in Moscow, Russia and China will establish an even closer alliance. It is often added: finally. All we can say about this is that certain circles not only in Russia but also in China are in favor of such an alliance, including a military one. However, the leadership of the two countries has repeatedly assured that a bloc policy is not our choice and that both countries do not consider it possible and necessary to bind their hands and feet. According to Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, this is "not an exclusive bloc, but an honest partnership. "Relations between China and Russia are based on the principles of non-alignment and non-confrontation. We are not friends against anyone, we do not threaten anyone. And no one can break us up," the diplomat said. And it seems quite reasonable. It is hard to imagine how the world would change if such an alliance were indeed established, and a dozen countries that are not under American protectorate would also join it. In addition, the current basic treaty between China and Russia already contains a provision on mutual support for the protection of state unity and territorial integrity. There is also a point of view in Russia that China is not an ally and not a friend. It is said to be acting exclusively in its own interests. Although it is not clear why a sovereign country should compromise its interests, even if it is in favor of a friend, nevertheless Xi Jinping's trip to Moscow immediately after his reelection demonstrates this friendship. Consequently, Russian and Chinese interests largely coincide. The confirmation of this thought is in the words of the President of Russia, who in December 2022 announced the Chinese leader's visit to Russia: "You and I share the same views on the causes, course and logic of the ongoing transformation of the global geopolitical landscape, in the face of unprecedented pressure and provocations from the West, we defend the principal positions and protect not only our interests, but also all those who stand for a truly democratic world order and the right of countries to freely determine their fate." According to the Russian leader, the visit will demonstrate "to the whole world the strength of the Russian-Chinese ties on key issues." Didn't the President of China, after his re-election, first of all go to the United States or Europe, where, according to the logic of many commentators, are the main economic interests of China? Chinese Ambassador to Russia Zhang Hanhui succinctly explains the philosophy of our relations: "We are more than allies, we stand back to back. In this sense, it is useful to quote the popular Chinese (Xiangsu) newspaper South China Morning Post: "Xi Jinping's trip would be an important event in Chinese diplomacy with far-reaching consequences for his international position and ties with the United States and other major powers. Such a visit would underscore Beijing's strategic choice to stand with Moscow in its geostrategic rivalry with the West and send a message of defiance." And the answer to the question of why China is doing this is contained in the words of the head of Chinese diplomacy Qin Gang: "The more lack of stability in the world, the more important it is to strengthen Russian-Chinese ties. According to him, the U.S. has "lost all common sense" in its approach to relations with China. "Washington's preached "competition" with China is nothing but an attempt to contain and suppress China, and its rhetoric of "non-conflict" suggests that China will silently tolerate attacks. But this is simply impossible!" - stressed the head of the Chinese foreign ministry.

America, hit the brakes!

Washington calls Beijing the main enemy, Chinese officials accuse Americans of provoking direct confrontation. In recent months, since the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of China, everyone with little interest in politics must have concluded that relations between Washington and Beijing have sharply deteriorated. The statements of high-ranking officials on both sides, additional U.S. sanctions against China and some actions by U.S. lawmakers testify to this. The U.S. National Security Doctrine last year called China a strategic (the only one capable of challenging) adversary. But the projection of this definition at the highest levels of the U.S. establishment is impressive, showing a deep hatred that reaches the point of hysteria. How, China dares to challenge? Then it must not only be contained, but destroyed. At the very least, destroy its ability to resist America. "Communist China is the strongest and most disciplined enemy we have ever faced," said Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley. - Never in my life did I think Americans would look up into the sky and see a Chinese spy balloon looking at us. It was a national embarrassment. I can't believe Joe Biden is letting China get away with it. Chinese companies now own more than 380,000 acres (1,538 square kilometers - Auth.) of American land, some right next to our military bases. We must never allow the enemy to buy land in our country. The definition of "enemy" in relation to China is increasingly common in the American political lexicon. The Chinese threat is seen not only in China's high-tech companies, but literally in everything Chinese that, for obvious reasons, surrounds Americans. From the latest news. The U.S. Congress passed a special resolution to investigate ... Chinese port and storage cranes. It is strongly suspected in the U.S. that they not only monitor all U.S. trade, but already almost control it. This hysteria, however, mirrors the views of the American electorate. According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans continue to view China as the greatest enemy of the United States for the third year in a row. Today more than 50% of Americans said that China is their country's worst enemy. Only 32%, however, put Russia in first place. Interestingly, the North Korea, which held the palm of power among U.S. antagonists (for example, in 2018 the DPRK was considered the main enemy by 51% of Americans), is now disliked by only 7% of Americans. But in China, which for many decades has avoided direct, even verbal confrontation with the United States, apparently realized that the conflict cannot be avoided and it is better to prepare for it and prepare the population. And during the main political event of the year in China - a session of the National People's Congress - we heard unusually harsh statements. Moreover, they do not use the definitions typical of the diplomatic Chinese like "the countries concerned," but refer directly to the United States. Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang frankly warned of a clash with the United States if Washington did not stop its efforts to contain Beijing, stressing the Chinese Communist Party's concern about escalating tensions between the rival superpowers. "If the United States does not hit the brakes, but continues to speed down the wrong path, no amount of guardrails can prevent derailing, and there will surely be conflict and confrontation," Qin Gang said. - What is the point of making loud statements about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity in the issue of Ukraine, but then not respecting China's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the issue of Taiwan? Why, on the one hand, do they demand that China should not provide weapons to Russia, and on the other hand, sell weapons to Taiwan in long-term violation of the joint communiqués?" There is also a reference to Russia: "Thanks to China and Russia joining forces, the movement toward a multipolar world and a more democratic international system has gained momentum, and global strategic balance and stability have gained a guarantor. The more turbulent the world becomes, the more China-Russia relations must move forward." The fact that this was not an impromptu speech by the minister, but a new vision of foreign policy is evidenced by the words of the newly reconfirmed as Chairman of the CPC, Xi Jinping, addressed to the delegates: "The Western countries, led by the United States, are carrying out a comprehensive containment, encirclement and suppression of us." Chairman Xi, in his usual diplomatic manner, confined himself to this. Or maybe we don't know everything he said on this subject. But a number of principal decisions adopted by the National People's Congress indicate that China is about to undergo profound reforms. Not the least of their objectives: to concentrate power, rebuild the economy and the financial sphere in the face of the beginning global confrontation with the United States. Of course, Minister Qin Gang makes a diplomatic curtsey toward the United States: "What should define China-U.S. relations are common interests, shared responsibility, and friendship between our peoples, but not the domestic politics of the United States and the hysterical new McCarthyism." Indeed, China is ready to reduce the heat of passion and not to move from peaceful competition to confrontation. But the answer is contained in the words of Michael Gallagher, head of the newly created U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Existing Threat (Chinese). It is no longer a question of some kind of containment, but of "an existential struggle over what life will look like in the twenty-first century." In fact, he is right. Conflict is inevitable on ideological grounds as well. The problem is to prevent the entire human civilization from perishing in this confrontation.

Blinken was told in Astana: We do not need to be protected from Russia

On February 28, the head of the U.S. Department of State paid an official visit to Kazakhstan and simultaneously held a meeting in the "C5+1" format. In other words, the Secretary of State spoke with colleagues from five countries of the former Soviet Union – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. On the one hand, this visit follows the old (and even outdated) strategy of isolating Russia around the world, in which Blinken rushes around the continents trying to force everyone to "cancel Russia." On the other hand, the visit is within the framework of the new tactic of enforcing anti-Russian sanctions, which means twisting arms and blackmailing those who have the audacity to trade with Russia. As for Central Asia, the task here is difficult, to say the least. Since the beginning of the special military operation, all five former Soviet republics in Central Asia have not supported any UN resolution condemning Russia for its actions in Ukraine. Including the most recent one, which called on Russia to withdraw its forces and surrender. It also turns out that the anti-Russian sanctions had an extremely positive effect on the economies of these countries, which are successfully taking advantage of opportunities to make money by circumventing these sanctions: parallel exports to Russia and exports of our products, including to the EU. And in this area the Americans have little prospect of convincing our neighbors. After all, Russia accounts for 60-80 percent of trade of these countries. Gas for the eastern regions of Kazakhstan, markets, transit revenues – all this is Russia. According to the President of Kazakhstan Tokayev, the GDP of this country grew by 4 percent last year, which is a lot for a pandemic year. And this is the official data. In Kazakhstan, they say that Russia makes a significant contribution to economic (and technological) growth. The situation in the other countries of the so-called "C5" is similar. The only difference is that a large part of their GDP is created by migrants from these countries working in Russia and sending their salaries back home, for example, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. The Americans have only some forceful methods of pressure, up to and including the military. But how can this be done when there is a Russian military base in Tajikistan and the region is part of the CSTO sphere of responsibility? Blinken, of course, hinted at secondary sanctions in Astana. But somehow passively, as if he knew in advance that threats would not achieve much here. Judging by the reports, he could not offer anything in return, except promises of investment. Nevertheless, during all the talks and press conferences, Secretary of State advertised the Initiative for Economic Stability in Central Asia that was launched by the US State Department last year: $25 million was allocated for it, and Blinken promised to add another $20 million this year. It turns out to be $9 million per country. Not much. In this program behind beautiful words about "diversification of trade routes, expansion of investments in the region, and employment opportunities by providing the Central Asian population with practical skills for modern labor market" is laid the well-known American methods of interference in internal affairs of sovereign states. The allocated millions will mostly go to structures and NGOs close to the U.S., but it is mere pennies compared with $6 billion, which was enough for Ukraine to "decide on its European future." Instead of carrots, Blinken showed a touching concern for independence, supposedly for which Washington genuinely cares "in connection with the imperial ambitions of Russia and China." The U.S. White House envoy urged Central Asian states not to fear Russia because Americans "are willing to guarantee their sovereignty." This message caused bewilderment not only among local political analysts, but also among participants of the "C5" meeting. It turned out that they are not afraid of Russia. It is well understood in Kazakhstan that if Russia had somehow encroached on this sovereignty, it could easily have used last year's rescue of Tokayev from reprisals (including physical) during the uprising – up to and including replacing him with a politician loyal to Moscow. And the CSTO Allied Forces, which were 90 percent of Russian troops, could still be in the republic. Well, there are already anecdotes and jokes all over the world about the sovereignty of countries ensured by the U.S. Therefore, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, in oriental style, cordially thanked Blinken "for consistent and unwavering support of independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty". But Mukhtar Tleuberdi, head of the Kazakh Foreign Ministry, gave a substantive answer: "We don't see or feel any risks or threats from Russia at the moment," he said at a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. According to the minister, Kazakhstan is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the CIS, "so we see relations with Russia as an alliance that functions within these multilateral structures." "Kazakhstan continues to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy, thereby trying to maintain a system of checks and balances to ensure mutually beneficial cooperation with all countries of the world," added Tleuberdi. This is not only about Russia, but also about China, which also plays an important role in the region and will not allow the U.S. to strengthen its influence. Incidentally, Kazakhstan, as well as other states in the region, supported China's peace plan for the settlement in Ukraine. Actually, in Astana, Blinken was orientally polite, if not to say obsequious. He even forgot about the "bloody January" of 2022 in Kazakhstan, about the usual accusations of human rights violations, he abandoned the eternal calls for democratic reforms, the release of political prisoners and similar American chatter. Even on the State Department website, information about meetings with President Merziev of Uzbekistan is limited to general phrases about an exchange of views and Washington's support for reforms in that country. We can assume that no breakthroughs have been achieved here either. But it should be noted that Washington's level of diplomacy seems to be constantly not just deteriorating, but culminating in its imperial vision of the world space. In preparing for Blinken's visit to Central Asia, the State Department failed to take into account that the foreign ministers of these countries are not at all equivalent to Blinken himself in terms of influence on policy. They are merely officials who carry out the will and instructions of the presidents. Therefore, the arrival of an overseas guest is certainly an important and notable event for the region, but more of a ceremonial nature. Maybe this is why Moscow practically ignored the visit of the State Secretary, seeing no special significance or danger in it. However, it does not mean that Russia can relax here. The U.S. will continue to try to drive a wedge between Moscow and its traditional partners in Central Asia. Washington's pressure on them will increase.

India knows which side of history is right

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in Bangalore went so far as to make direct threats against the official delegation of Russia. Last meeting of the G20 finance ministers and heads of central banks in Bangalore, India, did not bring many surprises. Despite the efforts of the Indian presidency and most of the representatives to work out a joint position on the key problems of the world economy, the final communiqué could not be adopted. After all, consensus is a prerequisite for its adoption. However, not only Russia, but also China could not agree to the introduction in the economic communiqué of purely political points concerning the conflict in Ukraine. Accordingly, for the third time (earlier in Bali, in Washington – in 2022), the final communiqué was replaced by a statement of the chairman, in this case by India. This happened despite Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's direct call for the G20 financial leaders to focus on "the world's most vulnerable citizens" and not politicize the economic agenda. Opening the meeting in Bangalore, Modi said that the COVID-19 pandemic and "growing geopolitical tensions in different parts of the world" have led to unsustainable debt levels in several countries, disruptions in global supply chains and threats to food and energy security. It would seem that such topics cannot afford delay. Nevertheless, representatives of the G7 insisted on the Ukrainian agenda here as well. The Russian Foreign Ministry's official statement on the occasion emphasized the West's destabilizing role in the failure to adopt collective G20 decisions. During the meeting, representatives of financial institutions of the G20 countries developed measures for the growth of the global economy and financial markets. The Russian Foreign Ministry stressed that the BRICS countries and especially the Indian presidency have made a positive contribution to this project. But ... "Our opponents, first and foremost the United States, the EU and the G7, are still not slowing down in their paranoid attempts to isolate Russia and shift the blame for the provoked problems in international security and the world economy onto it," the statement read. "We urge the collective West to abandon their destructive course as soon as possible, realize the objective realities of a multipolar world, and start building normal relations with new centers of power in the international arena, such as Russia, on the principles of sovereign equality of States," the Russian Foreign Ministry added. A similar protest against the actions of the West followed from the Foreign Ministry of China. "Here we see a shift in the Chinese position, and that is very unfortunate," German Finance Minister Linder lamented, while officials from Russia, China's strategic partner, insist that discussions should concern only "technical issues of the international financial architecture. So, the U.S. and its allies (or, more correctly, vassals) on all international platforms set a goal of forcing everyone and everything "to stand on the right side" of history, twisting the arms of those who do not agree. And regardless of the subject of discussion: politics, economics, climate, humanitarian issues. The hypocrisy has no limits. In particular, here is a passage from the proposed points of the communiqué: "Peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to resolve crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue are vital" and "Today's era should not be a war." Who would argue with this, if we discard double standards and if we were not talking solely about Ukraine. We are told about peaceful conflict resolution, crisis management and diplomacy by those who rejected all of Russia's peace proposals, who forced Kiev to withdraw from peace talks last year. It is inconceivable that similar points appeared in the communiqués of international meetings during the U.S. and coalition attack on Iraq. There was no condemnation during the destruction of Libya by NATO and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. And only because then NATO burned and killed supposedly in the name of democracy, while now Russia has opposed the sacred principles of the "free" world. But this approach is no longer acceptable to everyone a priori. The West has failed to twist India's arm. Prime Minister Modi's speech to the Bangalore summit is a vivid example of this. There is no condemnation of Russia in it. Indeed, as G20 chair, India is interested in compromises and signing final documents. But, as they say, everything has a limit. And this limit was also marked during the just-concluded visit of the German Chancellor to New Delhi. Scholz failed to put India on the right "side of history," although he made attractive offers to the Indians, including in the trade, economic and defense sectors. But a country with a population of 1.4 billion that is rapidly developing (and without Western aid), but faces considerable social and economic problems, believes that "one old friend is better than two new ones." India remembers its colonial past and is not ready to exchange its time-tested friendship with Russia for short-term promises, behind which there is political pressure. Minister Siluanov and Central Bank Governor Nabiullina were not present at the last G20 financiers' meeting in Bangalore. Although it is said that the Indian side would like to see them there. But taking into account the situation in Moscow they decided to lower the level of representation. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is expected to visit Delhi on March 1. In addition to meetings with Indian counterparts, he will take part in a meeting of heads of diplomatic missions of the G20 countries. It is expected that the main topics of talks with Indian Foreign Minister Subramaniam Jaishankar will focus on trade and investment, transport and logistics cooperation, as well as the use of national currencies in mutual settlements and promising projects in the field of energy. "The ministers will exchange views on current international issues, including interaction in the framework of the Indian presidency of the SCO and the G20, as well as coordination of approaches in the UN, BRICS, RIC (Russia, India, China)," said the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova. A number of regional issues will also be discussed, in particular the formation of a security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region, the situation in Afghanistan and the situation in Ukraine. We remember Western countries' provocations against Lavrov in Bali in 2022. Nevertheless, he decided to personally present the Russian position. Let's see what will happen in India. One can get an impression of how the representatives of the so-called "free democratic world" behaved in Bangalore from the reports in the Western press. Here, for example, is what The New York Times writes. "I urge Russian officials here at the G20 to understand that their continued work for the Kremlin makes them complicit in Putin's atrocities," U.S. Treasury Secretary Yellen said in a closed-door meeting, as a Treasury Department official told the newspaper. – They are responsible for the lives and economic damage to Ukraine and the world. It is clear that there is no question of diplomacy here. Instead, there is a hint of a direct threat to people who are simply doing their jobs, and a call for treason. But unlike the meeting in Washington last year, where the Yellen-led "fighters for good against bad" tried to boycott the heads of the Russian delegation, in Bangalore they listened intently to what the Russian representatives had to say. The behavior of Yellen and her Western colleagues (including Canadian Finance Minister Freeland, the successor of the Ukrainian Banderites) had no effect on the Russian delegation. But Western methods and policies are a clear lesson not only for non-Western members of the G20, but also for the rest of the world. The approach of the global South was recently formulated by Ugandan President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. In short: The West has colonized us, killed and robbed us, and now it demands that we support it in a war against Russia, which has never colonized or humiliated us and, on the contrary, has supported our quest for independence and justice. According to Indian Foreign Minister Subramaniam Jaishankar, who will chair the forthcoming meeting of heads of diplomatic missions in Delhi, "Europe must stop thinking that Europe's problems are problems of the world and that the problems of the world are not problems of Europe." To paraphrase in a modern way in the style of the old Reagan: There is something more important for the collective South than Ukraine.

Balloon Diplomacy

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The US Secretary of State unexpectedly postponed his visit to Beijing, scheduled for February 5-6. What would that mean? On February 3, the head of American diplomacy announced that he had decided to postpone a visit to the Chinese capital scheduled for Sunday. According to Blinken, the United States has informed China about this step at various levels. At the same time, the Secretary of State refused to announce new dates, making it clear that it would be premature to talk about this before resolving the current incident. According to the American ABC News channel, Blinken does not want to cancel the visit in order not to "inflate" the situation. In addition, the Secretary of State allegedly does not want the "balloon theme" to be dominant in the negotiations. "It's hard to imagine a worse "warm-up" ahead of Anthony Blinken's critically important talks in Beijing, which are expected in the next few days, than the news that a suspected Chinese spy balloon is merrily hovering over the United States." This is how CNN political analyst Stephen Collinson assessed reports of an alien balloon flying over American territory. The cancellation two days before his visit, which had been preparing since last summer, became an information bomb. And no wonder. After all, the American media made big plans for this trip. Blinken was to meet with the re-elected leader of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping, the head of the office of the International Affairs Committee of the CPC Central Committee Wang Yi, as well as the new Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang. They talked about "restarting US-China relations, relieving tensions in the trade and economic sphere," talking about global security and "helping Russia circumvent sanctions." But it seems that the cancellation of the visit was the only reaction that the United States could afford in connection with a very curious situation that arose during the flight of a Chinese research probe over American territory. A scandal has arisen in the USA. The radicals accused the administration of passivity, began to demand an immediate harsh reaction. The Republican leader in Congress, Kevin McCarthy, for example, said that China "committed a destabilizing act, brazenly violated the sovereignty of the United States, and President Joe Biden cannot remain silent." The American right saw in the story of the balloon an additional reason to attack the president, whom they consider soft towards China: they say, there is a violation of US sovereignty, and the administration does not react properly. As a result, the US State Department and the US Defense Ministry were forced to accuse the PRC of violating the airspace, the country's sovereignty and the norms of international law. To which the Chinese Foreign Ministry calmly stated that the probe of a civilian purpose, research, does not pose any threat, turned out to be over the territory of the United States by accident. The wind blew. Like, why make so much noise?! Let's resolve everything peacefully. The head of the office of the CPC Central Committee's foreign affairs commission, Wang Yi, reacted to the Secretary of State's decision to postpone the planned visit: "Beijing does not accept any unfounded speculation and hype." He stressed China's exceptionally responsible approach, and also recalled that China has always strictly adhered to the norms of international law. Even in this case, Beijing adheres to international law, the probe flies almost in the stratosphere, just below the satellites, where there is no air as such. And the fact that the winds brought it, they say, is force majeure. With whom it does not happen. A strong reaction could be the destruction of the probe and the implementation of Blinken's visit according to plan. But on what basis should we eliminate a scientific probe that accidentally flew into the Americans and is also moving at a high altitude? It would be even stronger to show evidence that this is not a scientific probe at all, but an intelligence one, which the Pentagon accuses the Chinese of. But then you need to knock it down so as to save the equipment. But with this, apparently, the Americans have big problems. The strongest and most equipped army in the world turned out to be unarmed in front of a "peaceful" Chinese balloon. As it turned out, knocking him down is far from an easy task. The Pentagon, pathetically justifying himself, said that he allegedly had F-22 fighters ready to destroy the balloon if an order came from above. But, ultimately, at first the military decided not to do this, ostensibly so as not to put people in this sparsely populated state at risk. As if a lot of debris could form during the destruction, falling on their heads. And by the way, in Montana, where the balloon flew, there is a warehouse of American strategic missiles. The probe first appeared over America on January 28. Then he barged over Canada for a couple of days without causing any reaction. As Biden himself said, he was informed about a strange object on February 1, and the US president immediately gave the order to shoot down the balloon as soon as possible. But it was only on February 4 that his order was carried out. That is, for a week, the Chinese probe calmly traveled over American and Canadian territories and, as stated by US Secretary of Defense Austin, observed strategic objects. The Envoy of the People's Republic of China only one day did not live up to one of the favorite Chinese holidays – the Lantern Festival (Yuanxiaojie), which this year fell on February 5. Traditionally, on this day, the Chinese hang colorful holiday lanterns and launch them into the air. It seems that this year in China this day was celebrated with special pathos, sending millions of balloons into the sky. After the tragic death of the Chinese probe, the Chinese Foreign Ministry regretfully stated that the actions of the United States in relation to a peaceful balloon were disproportionate and even reserved the right to protect the company that launched the flying object and to retaliate. In the United States, many, including famous personalities such as Elon Musk, allowed themselves to mock the actions of the White House. The Chinese balloon was compared to a copy of the globe, a symbol of peace, and Biden was compared to a villain who brought down fighter jets and missiles on a defenseless flying object. Several decades ago, at the height of the Cold War with the USSR, the Americans themselves actively used such means of espionage and provocations. And they were justified by the fact that their probes were flying in the stratosphere, which is not airspace. According to some reports, not one, but about five thousand similar balloons flew over the territory of the USSR. About one thousand of them were shot down. To combat such objects in our country, special high-altitude aircraft were used and special missiles were developed. Apparently, there were no such people at the ready in the United States, and the Pentagon was thinking for a long time about how to carry out the president's order. The US Department of Defense is most likely lying. If ordinary Americans had not discovered the balloon, the US military would simply have remained silent. Why make a fuss if Chinese reconnaissance satellites are flying a little higher, and nothing happens? Here it is appropriate to recall the notorious American spy planes U-2, which plowed the space over the USSR with impunity for many years until high-altitude anti-aircraft missiles appeared in our country. Generally speaking, there is a lot of guile here. For example, American ships regularly pass near the island of Taiwan, which is a province of China. Moreover, the United States officially recognizes this. That is, they deliberately enter the territorial waters of the PRC, violate the sovereignty of China. China is not ready to react accordingly yet, although last year after Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, the Chinese military demonstrated how they can block shipping in this area. By the way, a naval blockade can be that non-lethal means of returning Taiwan "to the bosom of the motherland." That is, China is quite capable of winning here without a war. And the supply of the Taiwanese puppet administration with American weapons is not a violation of the sovereignty of the PRC? If the flight of the balloon and the American reaction are not part of a sophisticated geostrategic plan, then why would the Chinese not be lying against this background, too? Maybe this Chinese balloon got to the Americans by accident, because of the weather conditions. Maybe there was nothing in it but air. Or maybe, on the contrary, Chinese technologies have stepped so far that even American strategists are not able to decipher them. But in fact it turns out that the Chinese have shown how they can disarm the enemy without war and military action. This is just in the spirit of the canons of Chinese martial art. China's social networks and even newspapers are full of cartoons about how "a Chinese balloon is floating merrily over the USA." They write that Chinese science and technology is able to produce thousands of such balloons that will fly all over the globe. Exclusively for scientific, peaceful purposes. And the fact that the ball was eventually shot down doesn't matter anymore. And as for Blinken, sooner or later he will get over it and come to Beijing. Despite the many claims against the United States, the PRC does not seem to refuse dialogue either. When diplomats speak and balloons fly, guns are silent. So we still need to talk.

Moscow and Beijing are global partners

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The Chinese leader confirmed his readiness to develop close strategic relations with Russia. The conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on December 30 was the fourth substantive meeting of the leaders of the two countries in 2022, which in itself speaks about the level of partnership. They spoke on the phone several times. No other country can boast of such an intensity of contacts with the Chinese leader. Rumors about these negotiations have been going around for a long time, there were many different assumptions and speculations, but even after they took place, the situation did not completely clear up. Communication took place via closed videoconferencing channels. For obvious reasons, the content is disclosed very limited. Earlier, Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov outlined the range of topics in an extremely lapidary way: bilateral relations, including economic ones. As well as acute problems that concern China and Russia, including the conflict in Ukraine. At the end of the talks Dmitry Peskov said: "The President expressed confidence that through joint efforts it will be possible to bring cooperation between the countries to a new, even higher level for the benefit of the Russian and Chinese peoples, in the interests of strengthening stability and security on the regional and global dimensions." At the beginning of the meeting, President Putin said in general terms that it was devoted to summarizing the work and plans for the further development of Russian-Chinese relations, as well as exchanging views on the most pressing international issues. It is noted that "in the conditions of increasing geopolitical tension, the importance of the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership as a stabilizing factor is increasing. Our relations stand up to all tests with dignity, demonstrate maturity and stability, continue to expand dynamically, are the best in history, and represent a model of cooperation between major powers in the XXI century." The Russian President noted the increase in the volume of trade between the two countries, the strengthening of military and military-technical cooperation and the restoration of humanitarian exchanges. The Chinese leader confirmed all this in his response, expressing his satisfaction with the development of multifaceted relations with Russia. A version is actively circulating that the leaders of the two countries also discussed in the closed part of the conversation what was contained in the message of the President of the Russian Federation, which was delivered to Beijing on December 21 by Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev. According to Dmitry Peskov, the message of the President of the Russian Federation to the President of the People's Republic of China again concerned bilateral relations, the international situation and partnership between Russia and China. There were few specifics. "The parties checked their watches on a number of significant international issues, noting the broad coincidence of Moscow and Beijing's approaches to the most pressing world problems, touched upon the subject of strategic foreign policy coordination, including within the UN and other multilateral platforms, including the SCO, BRICS and the Group of Twenty. "The situation in the post–Soviet space, including the Ukrainian crisis, was discussed," the secretariat of the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation reported. It is hardly by chance that Medvedev's trip coincided with the voyage of the President of Ukraine to the United States. "While Zelensky is visiting Washington, Putin is sending an assistant to Beijing. The Kremlin spread the news about the visit to China just a couple of hours after the information about the Ukrainian president's trip to the United States was made public," the American edition of Politico noted. Chinese media reported about the talks of the leader of the People's Republic of China not with the deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, but with the chairman of the United Russia Party, who came to China at the invitation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Which was quite true. Dmitry Medvedev arrived in Beijing precisely as the leader of the ruling United Russia party and was accompanied by a party delegation, which included, in particular, the Secretary of the General Council of United Russia, Vice Speaker of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation Andrey Turchak and the head of the United Russia faction in the State Duma Vladimir Vasiliev. And in this sense, Dmitry Medvedev and Xi Jinping met on equal terms – as leaders of the leading political forces in their countries. Commenting on the talks, Dmitry Medvedev noted that, among other things, they discussed issues of interaction "between the two ruling parties" – the CPC and United Russia. This is all the more curious, since leadership in inter-party cooperation with a neighbor previously seemed to belong to the Communist Party. But recently, a different track of negotiations has appeared here. After receiving the message, the Chinese leader said that China is ready to move closer to Russia for the sake of more equitable global governance, and assured that the development of the Sino-Russian partnership is a long-term strategic choice made by both sides. It's worth a lot. However, with one caveat. On the one hand, the Chinese side makes it clear that it would like an early cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, on the other hand, it expresses understanding of the origins of the conflict and Russia's concerns in the sphere of ensuring its security. President Putin has put the closeness of views in such a formula: "You and I have the same view on the causes, course and logic of the ongoing transformation of the global geopolitical landscape, in the face of unprecedented pressure and provocations from the West, we defend principled positions and defend not only our interests, but also all those who stand for a truly democratic world order and the right of countries to freely determine their fate." Xi Jinping replied in the affirmative: "In the face of a difficult and far from unambiguous international situation, we are ready to increase strategic cooperation with Russia, provide each other with development opportunities, and be global partners for the benefit of the peoples of our countries and in the interests of stability throughout the world." The result is as follows. It is obvious that all attempts by the West to drive a wedge between Russia and China, to drag China "to the right side of history" have failed. And at the meeting, the leader of the People's Republic of China once again confirmed his principled position of support for Russia. Over the past year, Beijing has never voted for an anti-Russian resolution at the UN. The foreign ministries of the two countries continue to coordinate the policies of the two countries in the international arena. Cooperation has intensified within the framework of international organizations – BRICS, SCO, as well as the integration of the "One Belt, One Road" and Eurasian integration projects. The day before, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi scolded U.S. Secretary of State Blinken by phone, who tried to inquire about the content of President Xi's conversations with Dmitry Medvedev and made hints about Sino-Russian relations. And this is despite numerous warnings that this does not concern anyone except Russia and China, and even the United States – the global controller – is the third extra here. The strategic partnership between Russia and China also has an increasing military component. As the official representative of the Ministry of Defense of the People's Republic of China Tan Kefei stated on December 29, the Sino-Russian naval exercises of the fleets of the two countries held in the Far East in December 2022 "further deepened the comprehensive strategic cooperation between China and Russia in a new era." "The navies of both countries have demonstrated the determination and ability of China and Russia to strengthen the joint response to threats to maritime security, as well as to maintain peace and stability at the international and regional levels," Tan Kefei said. He also stressed that the exercises "further deepened the comprehensive strategic cooperation between China and Russia in a new era." By the way, this is already the 78th joint military exercises, which have become more frequent since 2014. That is, there is absolutely obvious progress in relations between Russia and China, even despite the military actions in Ukraine. There is also a fairly noticeable increase in trade turnover, which this year will be a record. However, this growth, still calculated in US dollars, is partly due to rising energy prices, as well as due to Russian exports to China. Chinese supplies to Russia so far leave much to be desired, especially in terms of high-tech products, in which Russia is interested after the departure of Western companies and the cessation of imports from unfriendly countries. Maybe the leaders of the two countries talked about this, too? Nevertheless, this year's trade turnover will probably amount to at least 180 billion dollars. And maybe more. That is, for the second year in a row, it has increased by a third, and, apparently, the task set by the leaders of the two countries – to reach the $ 200 billion mark in 2024 – will be successfully completed and even exceeded. The turn to the East took place completely. Although at the moment there are bottlenecks in the development of trade. In particular, problems with the transportation of goods, which, according to Chinese Ambassador Zhang Hanhui, arise, among other things, due to bureaucratic delays on the Chinese side. Sometimes these obstacles can be removed only during contacts at the highest level. Probably, this topic could also be raised by the President of Russia. Of course, we are still a long way from the United States, which trades with China annually for $ 750 billion. But in the wake of the deterioration of political relations, mutual criticism and sanctions, the growth in the volume of Sino-American trade in the first seven months of this year amounted to 9.5%, that is, the growth rate is inferior to the Russian-Chinese, and there is a tendency to strengthen this dynamic. But shouldn't we take a step back and look at the situation from a certain historical perspective? "Ten years have passed since President Xi Jinping was elected General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, and President Putin was re-elected President of Russia. Over these ten years, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era, and Sino-Russian relations have also entered a new era." It is obvious that now we can sum up the results of the decade during which Russia and China radically converged and moved away from the undivided orientation of the two countries to the West. It is worth remembering that the first foreign country visited by Xi Jinping after taking office as President of the People's Republic of China was Russia (2013). In his speech at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Xi Jinping for the first time proposed to the world the concept of a "Community of the common Destiny of Mankind", presenting China's plan to cope with changes in the world. This was, in fact, the starting point of changing the vector of China's foreign policy. Over the decade, President Xi Jinping and President Putin have held about 40 detailed meetings, and their contacts by phone and correspondence have exceeded a hundred. The frequency, breadth, and depth of their interaction are unique for the leaders of major powers. This has determined a high level of political mutual trust, the dynamics of strategic cooperation, and the development of relations in all spheres. As a result, the volume of trade between the two countries has doubled from $88.16 billion in 2012. We sometimes predict that in the coming years China will completely sever its relations with the United States and reorient itself to Russia. Of course, China will not do this, it is governed by pragmatists, proceeding primarily from national interests. But Beijing will objectively push the US foreign policy, the general course of development of global processes. The deep contradictions between China and the United States, with all the versatility and depth of their relations, will increase, and this is already happening. The sanctions war, political and military pressure on China are forcing Beijing to reconsider its approaches in the field of foreign policy. Here, a reliable partnership with Russia will be of increasing importance for China. It is difficult to expect that in the coming years Russia will be able to replace the United States as one of China's main economic partners. But nevertheless the trend is on the face. Along with the reorientation to its own forces, to interaction with the countries of the "One Way", China will expand trade and economic relations with our country. The question here is even more, what can we offer our neighbor besides hydrocarbons and raw materials? During the meeting on December 30, an agreement was reached on the state visit of the President of the People's Republic of China to Russia, which is to take place in the spring. "This will demonstrate to the whole world the strength of Russian-Chinese ties on key issues, will become the main political event of the year in bilateral relations," the Russian president said on this occasion. It can be added that the upcoming visit will open a new decade of deepening and expanding Russian-Chinese cooperation. As the Chinese say, relations are in a "new era".

Beijing will get oil and a new level of relations with the Arab world

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The official visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Saudi Arabia is taking place on December 7-9. The trip goes far beyond the framework of bilateral relations. "At the kind invitation of the custodian of the two shrines (Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud – Ed.), the President of the People's Republic of China will pay an official visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from December 7 to 9, 2022," the Saudi state news agency SPA said. It is reported that during this visit, a Saudi-Chinese summit will be held under the chairmanship of the leaders of the two countries. It is characteristic that this message appeared only on December 6, literally on the eve of the Chinese leader's arrival in the UAE. On the same day, the Chinese Foreign Ministry officially notified about the planned visit. CNN, which "knows everything and about everyone," notified the world about this visit only on December 5. It is possible that the dates were kept secret until the last moment. And this is not surprising. The Chinese leader's trip was postponed several times and, apparently, carefully coordinated. It is possible that one of the reasons is the pressure on Riyadh and the entire Arab world from the United States, which actively put sticks in the wheels. Washington can be understood. After all, we are talking about the visit of the Chinese president to a country that was previously a key ally of the United States in the Middle East and led the entire Arab world into the "hedgehog embrace" of the United States. Now it's not like that. "Chinese President Xi Jinping intends to arrive in Saudi Arabia on a state visit amid high tensions between the United States and the two countries," CNN regretfully reports. – Xi Jinping's trip to Riyadh will begin on Wednesday and will include the "Saudi-Chinese summit", the Sino-Arab summit and the China-GCC (Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf) summit. At least 14 Arab heads of state are expected to attend the Sino-Arab summit, according to an Arab diplomatic source, who called the trip a "milestone" for Arab-Chinese relations." Some experts have already dubbed the visit historic. Perhaps it is. At least, we are talking not only about bringing Saudi-Chinese relations to a new level, but about a new stage of cooperation between China and the entire Arab world. The source of the US headache is obvious. "Reports of the long-awaited visit come amid disagreements between the United States and Beijing, as well as between the United States and Riyadh, and relations between China and the UAE have only strengthened in recent years, to the horror of Washington," CNN writes. – The United States and Saudi Arabia are still embroiled in a heated quarrel over oil production, which in October ended with harsh rhetoric and trade accusations, when the Saudi-led OPEC+ oil cartel cut production by two million barrels per day in an attempt to "stabilize" prices. The decision was made despite an active US campaign against him. Being a strong ally of the United States for eight long decades, Saudi Arabia has become embittered because, in its opinion, the US security presence in the region is weakening, especially against the background of growing threats from Iran and its armed Yemeni proxies." It is symptomatic that the Saudi agency SPA gave a "historical report" on 80 years of strengthening relations with China. Beijing now has close ties not only with the UAE, but also with the absolute majority of the 22 countries of the Arab League, regardless of their political system and ideological orientation. Huge foreign trade turnover is complemented by Chinese investments in infrastructure facilities in the region. And for oil, China can already offer not only a high price, but also advanced technologies, including military ones. On the contrary, all of President Biden's attempts to save US-UAE relations, including his summer visit to Riyadh, were unsuccessful. The carrot and stick policy did not work. Moreover, Saudi Arabia, like China, refrained from approving sanctions against Russia, and Riyadh has repeatedly argued that Moscow is a key partner in energy production, which should be consulted on OPEC+ decisions. After the massive reduction in oil prices last month, some US officials accused Saudi Arabia of siding with Russia and helping President Putin in his special operation against Ukraine. So, 80 years of cloudless relations between the UAE and the United States are coming to an end, and with China, on the contrary, they are reaching a strategic level. Moreover, taking into account the PRC-Arab League summit and the participation of numerous Arab leaders, it seems that we are talking not only about oil prices and the stability of its supplies, but about a new format of relations and the new role of the PRC in the region. This will most likely be fixed in the relevant documents. As for purely oil, even here, according to leaks and forecasts, something epoch-making is expected, for example, the rejection of the dollar in calculations. China is a world leader in the introduction of digital currency and blockchain settlement system. His People's Bank (Central Bank – approx. Auth.) succeeded in promoting the digital yuan much more than the leaders of the Western financial world in promoting the digital dollar. So it may be extremely interesting to the Arabs in an era of international turbulence and trade restrictions. Russia may also be interested in all this. Our country shares first or second place with the Saudis in terms of oil supplies to China. Stability in this market, in which China's position is strengthening and the United States is weakening, is also in our interests. There will be less politics and military provocations to manipulate prices. Well, as for the displacement of the dollar from the system of payments for oil, there is nothing to say. Beijing's position on Arab countries is close to Russia's on many points. China does not pretend to be the gendarme of the region, which was performed by the United States. But the growing influence of the PRC in the Arab world will contribute to strengthening the economic independence of this region, closer political interaction in the realization of their interests in spite of the United States. Of course, the United States will not leave the region. Their numerous military bases, close ties with many countries, and dependence on supplies from the United States, including the military, remain there. But the process went much faster than could have been expected.

Who was in line to meet Xi?

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text "An increasingly multipolar world." With this phrase, German Chancellor Scholz expressed what is on the mind of his colleagues in the Western coalition: global changes are evident. As we remember, at the Group of Twenty summit held on the Indonesian island of Bali, there were two obvious centers of attention: US President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The third was Vladimir Putin, but only in the thoughts and statements of the participants, since the President of Russia was not physically present there. So: all the other leaders clung to these two figures. Biden met with them personally, gathered meetings with allies-subordinates to discuss problems, including an emergency "flyer" about a rocket that fell in Poland. But the most desirable interlocutor was undoubtedly the Chinese leader. They tried to at least stand next to him (there is such a form of communication of leaders – "on their feet"), including the leaders of the countries that are Washington's closest allies. And the point, of course, is not that Xi Jinping has finally come out of almost three years of quarantine, during which he hardly went anywhere and met few people in person. It is most likely due to the increasing power of the Chinese state and its influence in the world. But few have received the attention of Xi Jinping, and here, too, a new handwriting of the Chinese leader is visible, which returns to the ancient canons of sophisticated Chinese diplomacy, which is characterized by taking into account all the details and working with partners, let's say, individually. Oddly enough, the audience of the "Chinese emperor" (as Xi Jinping is called by some Western media after his re–election as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China at the Twentieth Congress) was awarded to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Albanese - in Italian transcription). He managed, having developed considerable speed, to capture Xi Jinping's rather close attention and even hold talks with him. For the first time in six years. And despite the fact that in recent years Australia has been part of the circle of zealous adherents of the Anglo-Saxon world led by the United States, participates in the AUKUS military alliance (with the United States and Great Britain), as well as the quadrilateral security dialogue (QUAD) with the United States, India and Japan. But, apparently, there is no life in this region of the planet without China, which is why the Australian neglected political correctness. However, he was not the ringleader in this dance around Si. And he took an example from his patron Biden, who talked with the Chinese leader for as much as 3 hours and 12 minutes. An unprecedented case. Even the loyal US satellite in the Far East, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, secured an audience with Xi Jinping, during which he managed to "reach a consensus on the stabilization and development of bilateral relations." Not so long ago, this Kishida, hand in hand with Biden, declared his intention to defend the "status quo" of Taiwan, and now swears allegiance to "the principles set out in four joint political documents, as well as to follow the political consensus according to which China and Japan are partners in cooperation and do not pose a threat to each other." By the way, among these principles is the one–China formula and Taiwan is an integral part of it. According to Chinese sources, almost all the leaders of the "Big Seven" who visited the G-20 in Bali competed for the "ray of grace" emanating from Xi Jinping to fall on them as well. There was no end of applications, and not everyone had enough time and desire on the part of Xi. For example, the French president was allocated much less than Biden, only 43 minutes. But Macron used this chance "to the fullest." The French side's message about the meeting said that "Xi Jinping agreed with the "call for respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." In fact, it seems that Xi, in the traditional Chinese manner, did not react to this in any way. Following the meeting, the Chinese side said only that "China stands for a cease-fire, an end to the conflict and peace talks." Macron's rival Olaf Scholz was not allocated Xi's time at the summit – perhaps he did not ask. He had enough face-to-face talks in Beijing on the eve of the G20 summit. But after returning from Indonesia, the German leader made an apocalyptic statement that the good times with economic growth, low inflation and high employment had irrevocably passed for Europe and North America. The reason for this is the rapid development of the region of Southeast Asia and China. According to Scholz, states such as Vietnam and Indonesia have been "producing cheap goods" for decades, primarily for the European, North American and most often Chinese markets. "Meanwhile, however, a billion people have turned into representatives of the middle class with the corresponding purchasing power," Scholz noted. "The increasingly multipolar world is being radically rebuilt today. Nowhere can we observe a more distinct development than in Southeast Asia," the Chancellor said. Such revelations from Western politicians border on a global sensation. In this regard, the head of the German government called for the "diversification" of the markets for German products and the deepening of bilateral partnership with the countries of Southeast Asia. "The goal should be to expand trade with promising regions of the world, of course on the basis of fair rules," Scholz concluded. The intention is good, but the Germans will have to withstand tough competition with China, for which this region has long been the main economic and trading partner. And China's trade volume with the ASEAN countries exceeds similar indicators with the EU and the USA. In addition, Scholz is tied hand and foot. In the strategy of Germany towards China, merged by the German magazine "Spiegel", which is designed to resolve disagreements on this issue in the government coalition, there is all sorts of demagoguery such as human rights, restrictions on trade with the regions of the People's Republic of China, where they are allegedly violated. It is also said about "reducing trade and economic dependence on the PRC." A similar policy of "reducing dependence" on Russia has already led to a sharp increase in inflation in Germany and a crisis in entire sectors of the economy. Following it also in the Chinese direction borders on suicide. After all, China is Germany's main trading partner. Among those honored with Chinese attention in Indonesia were also the President of the Republic of Korea and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands. These are all Washington's closest partners. The consequences of those meetings were not long in coming. The leadership of the Netherlands has stated that it will protect its economic interests when it comes to selling chip equipment to China. That is, despite the ban imposed by the United States, they are ready to be friends with China instead of unconditionally following Washington's attempts to cut off Beijing from semiconductor technologies. Dutch Foreign Trade Minister Schreinemacher said that the Netherlands will make its own decision regarding the sale of chip equipment to China amid negotiations on trade rules with the United States and other allies. "It is important that we protect our national security as well as our economic interests," Schreinemacher told lawmakers in parliament in The Hague. And Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau in Bali received Xi's attention twice. The first time was when he held short talks with the leader of the People's Republic of China, during which he was displeased with unfriendly actions against China (including the detention of the head of the Chinese Huawei company at the behest of Washington). And the second time, when Xi Jinping publicly chastised Trudeau for disclosing information about their bilateral meeting. A video where Xi Jinping explains from top to bottom with a grin to his junior partner how to behave in a decent society was leaked by journalists of the Canadian prime minister's pool. But we know that in the West now nothing accidentally gets into the press. Apparently, Trudeau's entourage believed that they would expose the Chinese leader in an unsightly way. And it turned out the opposite. Everyone saw the power of Xi and the insignificance of his Western partner. However, Xi Jinping himself called it "naivety". Trudeau naively believes that in any situation he will be covered by the patron, the "emperor", as the US president was sometimes called by opposition Western political scientists, who rightly believed that the whole world is under the heel of the United States. But isn't all of the above a clear indication that the world is really ceasing to be unipolar, americanocentric? At least one more center of power appeared in it – China. And this is actually recognized not only by Scholz, but also by others. It remains to wait for the same recognition in relation to Russia. This may happen already when Washington's allies begin to calculate losses and descend from the skies of ideology to the land of real politics. By the way, according to the Politico newspaper, this is already happening. According to the publication, the unity of the Western allies has been shaken, and senior European officials are "furious with the Joe Biden administration" and accuse the Americans of profiting from the general crisis, while the EU countries are suffering. "The fact is that, if you look at it soberly, the country that benefits most from this conflict is the United States, because they sell more gas and at higher prices, and also because they sell more weapons," journalists quoted one of the European representatives. Apparently, Macron also understood something after the meeting with Xi Jinping. As reported by Chinese CCTV television, on November 21, French President Emmanuel Macron hosted a banquet for major European entrepreneurs at the Elysee Palace. Among the participants were the heads of Ericsson, Volvo, Unilever and others. The main message of the meeting: stay in Europe, do not go to the USA. The next day, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire lamented at a press conference: "Right before our eyes, the United States is developing its own industry on its own land." We must defend European corporate interests more firmly. "Today, more than ever, politicians in France and Europe are worried that companies are leaving Europe and that Europe's industrial system will be devastated by the United States.

G-20 Summit: Declaration of differences

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text As at the preliminary meetings of the Indonesian presidency of the Group of Twenty, the summit at the highest level showed that the contradictions between East and West are getting deeper. It is logical to assume that the results of the international forum are reflected in the documents adopted by it, as well as in the communique on the results of bilateral meetings. As for the G-20 summit held in Bali, this is partly true. But not really. On the one hand, the final declaration was signed after many compromises and shows the split of the world's leading economies into Western and non-Western parts. The West is mainly concerned about Ukraine, trying to "hang all the dogs" on Russia, isolate it, and Non-Western calls for an objective look at things, not politicize and work more on economic problems. This non-Western concern was generally expressed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a meeting of the G20 summit on food and energy security. The politician pointed out that global supply chains were "in ruins", there are problems with access even to basic necessities. And the resulting shortage of fertilizers can lead to a food crisis of unprecedented proportions. The poor inhabitants of each of the countries are already forced to fight for survival, because they do not have the financial capacity to cope with this blow. It is obvious that the West is primarily to blame for this situation, imposing sanctions against Russia and China, restricting the free exchange of goods in its political and vested interests. Is it not Russia's fault that the export of its agricultural products and fertilizers to world markets is limited? Modi, of course, did not say that. But the hints here are quite transparent. According to Western media, it was the Indian delegation to Bali that strenuously tried to shift the focus set by Western countries on the conflict in Ukraine towards global economic and financial problems. And it was she who played a key role in softening the wording of the final declaration, which could not have been adopted at all due to the disagreement of many G-20 member countries with the position of the G-7. In particular, India insisted on excluding the word "Russian" from the phrase "G-20 condemns the war in Ukraine." There is also a wording that there are "other opinions about this situation" And among those who express these opinions, first of all China and India. In addition, the declaration states that the conflict in Ukraine only "aggravated the existing problems of the world economy," and was not their root cause, as the West insists. "... We must find a way to return to the path of ceasefire and diplomacy in Ukraine," the Indian Foreign Ministry quoted the prime minister as saying in Bali. Modi stressed that ensuring peace is at the moment "the necessity of the hour." In addition, the Prime Minister of India, to whom the presidency of the G-20 passes, expressed the hope that at the next G20 summit its participants will agree to "convey to humanity a resolute mission of peace." The chairman of the forum, President of Indonesia Widodo, also urged to talk about serious problems in the global economy, and not about Ukraine and Russia. "Indonesians and the people of the world hope that the leaders will refrain from using precious moments at the summit just to criticize and attack each other. The world is on the verge of economic, military and other catastrophes – and the Third World War is on the threshold." And further: "If leaders or some of them are unwilling or unable to work together to find a way out of the global economic and security impasse, at least they can show modesty so as not to worsen the suffering of many people around the world." And finally, the leaders of the Group of Seven, that is, the West, "need to abandon their long-standing belief that they cannot be wrong and therefore have the right to impose their will on other nations, not so big and not so rich." On the other hand, Western representatives used every opportunity to show that "the international community condemns Russia," although in fact it turned out that we are talking about a narrow group of rich countries with their own interests. Even before finding out the ownership of the rocket that fell on Polish territory, Biden urgently called a meeting of his wards in the night, in the sense of the G-7 leaders, who tried their best to "inflate" the incident, which at that time was covered with an information fog. It was funny to watch videos in which obsequious Englishman Sunak and Canadian Trudeau ingratiatingly look into the eyes of American Biden in the hope of seeing anger there. After that, Biden was forced to officially declare that there are no facts indicating that the missile was Russian and deliberately fired at a Polish village. Otherwise, these slightly insane people would not do stupid things.… In addition to Ukraine and Russia, the focus of the summit was Chinese President Xi Jinping, to whom there was a whole queue of people who wanted to talk, mostly Westerners. And not only because Xi was without a medical mask this time and even shook hands with some. And first of all, because the Chinese leader has just received a mandate to manage China for the next five years, and also because, due to the difficult situation in the economy "because of Russia," some do not want to spoil relations with China - the second or first economy in the world. Among those honored with Chinese attention were the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the President of France, and the President of the Republic of Korea. As it is not surprising, even talks between the leaders of China and Australia took place on the sidelines of the summit. For the first time in six years. This is a kind of sensation and a reflection of the changes. Recently, relations between the two countries have been difficult – due to Canberra's participation in the AUKUS military alliance (with the United States and Great Britain), as well as the quadrilateral security dialogue (QUAD) with the United States, India and Japan. Nevertheless, on the sidelines of the G-20, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese "pleasantly discussed" trade and consular issues with Xi, noting that there are differences, but they can be resolved. Xi Jinping agreed and stressed: difficulties are not what we would like when interacting with Australia. And of course, everyone was waiting for the meeting of Xi Jinping and Biden – the first face-to-face meeting after the US president took office and Xi Jinping's re-election at the twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of China. And it took place. And it also shows some changes. They are that the United States no longer inclines China to the "right side of history" and does not demand to condemn Russia and join sanctions against it. Apparently recognizing the futility of this venture, the United States softened the rhetoric, in exchange for receiving more restrained assessments of the Chinese side regarding Ukraine and a demonstration of readiness to continue negotiations and find compromises. What Xi is definitely not doing is distancing himself from Russia and accusing it of all mortal sins. But the fundamental differences between the United States and China remain, and they take place approximately where the watershed between the West and Non-West, outlined at the G-20 summit, as well as at the previous East Asian Forum and at the subsequent APEC. The West has its own interests, sometimes selfish, China and the East in a broad sense have their own. China and other non-Western G-20 countries are not ready to sacrifice their economies and people's lives for the sake of the "high principles of democracy" imposed by Washington and its allies. There are indeed many problems and challenges in the world that need to be addressed, including high inflation, poverty, climate change, energy, and so on. And if the West is not ready to meet them halfway, then they will be solved within the framework of other associations, such as APEC, BRICS, SCO and others. Returning to the final declarations of the G-20 summits, it should be recalled that they do not solve anything, since they are not binding documents for execution. They only declare a common agenda, sum up a common denominator under different points of view. The declaration of the summit in Indonesia is a reflection of deep disagreements, disagreement with the agenda imposed by the dominant minority on the majority who are aware of their role. And the Bali summit itself showed that despite the usefulness of communication, hopes for the G-20 as an alternative to the weakening UN are not justified. As it was by definition a non-decisive club of interests, so it remains by and large. And the provocations that Western countries have staged (such as an urgent meeting on a fallen Russian missile that turned out to be Ukrainian) further diminish the significance of such events. Here it is impossible not to mention the fake of the largest Western news agency, which "by mistake" sent Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to the hospital immediately after his arrival in Bali. In fact, it was not he who was hospitalized with the coronavirus, but the Prime Minister of Cambodia, Hun Sen. But the level of "charging" of the Western media is impressive.

Xi and Biden talked, each about his own

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text An analysis of official reports on the meeting between the US President and the Chinese president shows that the differences between the two sides are intractable. "Today I met with President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping," the US president tweeted after meeting with his Chinese counterpart in Bali on November 14. "We discussed our responsibility to prevent competition between our countries from turning into conflict and to find ways to work together on common problems that affect the international community." Xi Jinping did not write anything on Twitter, which now belongs to Elon Musk and is going through difficult times of renovation. He doesn't write there at all. For that matter, China is full of its own social networks and messengers, where the Chinese leader could outline his vision of the negotiations at the highest level. Hundreds of millions would come there to read. But Chinese Internet services are so different from American ones that, for example, Americans have been at war with Chinese TikTok for years. So it is here. Despite the fact that the Americans are trying to demonstrate mutual understanding, when you read the reports on the negotiations of the two sides, you catch yourself thinking that these were two different meetings. No, they crossed paths somewhere, but in general, each side talked about its own, painful. Take Taiwan, for example. Here, in general, the conversation was in the style of "elder in the garden, and in Kiev (sorry) uncle. "As for Taiwan, he (Biden – approx. The author) stated in detail that our policy towards one China has not changed, the United States opposes any unilateral changes to the status quo on both sides, and the world is interested in maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. He expressed U.S. objections to China's coercive and increasingly aggressive actions against Taiwan, which undermine peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the wider region and threaten global prosperity." So it is written in a document entitled "Transcript of the meeting between President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping," posted on the website of the American White House. By the way, this document is one and a half pages long, although, according to world media, including Chinese, the meeting lasted a lot – 3 hours 12 minutes. We are clearly not being told a lot of what was discussed. But back to Taiwan. Xi Jinping, as has happened more than once at such talks, ignored the words of his colleague "about the aggressive actions of the PRC against Taiwan, which undermine peace in the Taiwan Strait." The message of the Chinese leader was as follows: this is our internal business and a red line for the United States, beyond which it is forbidden to enter. "The Taiwan issue is the core of China's fundamental interests, the basis of the political foundation of Sino–American relations, the first red line that cannot be crossed," Xi Jinping said. That is, if the Americans don't understand and accept it in the end, there will be no relationship at all. According to Xi, those who want to separate this territory from China are going against its national interests, and the so-called independence of Taipei is incompatible with peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. And again, the Chinese president repeated what he had repeatedly told Biden, pointing out the hypocrisy of US policy, its duplicity: "Mr. President has said many times that he does not support the "independence of Taiwan", and also that he does not intend to turn Taiwan into a tool to gain a competitive advantage and deter China. We hope that the American side will keep the promise of Mr. President." Xi Jinping once again expressed hope that the statements of the US representatives will not diverge from their actions, and Washington will adhere to the principle of "one China" and three joint communiques. That is, in American terms, Taiwan is, on the one hand, it seems to be China, but not quite. And not even China at all when it comes to Beijing's jurisdiction over its province. The contradiction is downright insoluble. Further – more. As follows from the official message of the White House, Biden said that the United States will continue to actively compete with China, "invest in centers of power on its territory" and coordinate all this with its allies. At the same time, the United States hopes that their policy will not lead to an open conflict, and it would be nice to develop "special principles" for this. In other words, the United States will pile on China with the whole world, will "restrain" it, and at the same time China must follow the principles. The story is well known to us. Xi Jinping, on the other hand, does not accept American policy, which is the root of all problems, and directly stated this: "Unleashing trade and technological wars, creating obstacles and barriers, forcibly disconnecting and severing supply chains completely violate the principles of a market economy and undermine the rules of international trade." "This can only harm others and not benefit yourself." According to Xi, instead of benefiting from the joint development of closely intertwined economies, the United States provokes conflicts. By denying China the right to exercise its jurisdiction over Taiwan, which was illegally taken away from it by force, declaring an era of collective "containment" of China, Biden at the same time hopes for cooperation to solve transnational problems such as climate change, global macroeconomic stability, including debt relief, health security and global food security.". "Because this is what the international community expects." What is this but a continuation of the American policy of hegemony in its veiled form towards China? We are well aware of the history of using Russia where it is useful and ignoring its fundamental interests. But from the field of interference in internal affairs, but no longer in Taiwan, but a rehash of an old song about the main thing: "President Biden expressed concern about the practice of the PRC in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, as well as human rights in a broader sense." Xi Jinping, of course, is concerned about this topic only in the sense that the United States is meddling with its own affairs. But in the polite manner peculiar to the Chinese, he ignored these words and did not talk about the unenviable fate of American Indians and modern outcasts of American society who dare not recognize same-sex marriages. Instead, the Chinese leader informed Biden that there is an American-style democracy in the United States, and there is a Chinese-style democracy in China, which correspond to their national conditions. The two countries are going their separate ways: The United States practices capitalism and China practices socialism, Xi said, noting that there is nothing new in such differences and they will continue to exist. A fundamental contradiction, by the way. The same was Xi's reaction to Biden's concern "about the provocative behavior of the DPRK." The US President "noted that all (!) members of the international community are interested in encouraging the DPRK to take responsible actions, and stressed the iron commitment of the United States to protect our Indo-Pacific allies." The President of the People's Republic of China, of course, did not answer anything, since China "does not belong to our Pacific allies." But Beijing did not turn away from the DPRK under any US presidents. So, apparently, it will continue. Biden, of course, also touched on the issue of "Russia's brutal war against Ukraine and Russia's irresponsible threats to use nuclear weapons." But the two leaders only agreed that they "confirmed their agreement that a nuclear war should never be waged and can never be won, and stressed their opposition to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine." Who would argue? Russia would have joined in this, as its official representatives say daily, warning of possible nuclear terrorism of the Ukrainian regime and the danger of direct conflict with NATO. The problem is who is encouraging this terrorism. Isn't it the USA? By American standards, Xi expressed absolute sedition in this regard, once again showing his solidarity with Russia and understanding of its concerns: "We support and hope for the resumption of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, and at the same time we hope that the United States, NATO and the European Union will conduct a comprehensive dialogue with Russia." It can be summed up with a phrase from the very transcript from the White House website: "Both leaders frankly spoke about their respective priorities and intentions on a number of issues." And nothing more. And this is not surprising. The differences are too big and too difficult to resolve. But compared to the negotiations in the online format on March 19 this year, there is still progress. The United States is no longer trying to "drag" China "to the right side of history", to force pressure on Russia and prohibit trade with it. Probably, Washington realized that it was useless. Well, or we don't know about it. Both sides talk about a good atmosphere and constructive conversation, but they do not specifically report what is constructive. What exactly was agreed on in Bali from what we are informed about is the visit of Secretary Blinken to Beijing and the establishment of communication channels in order to avoid confrontation and continue negotiations. "Where to move is a matter of concern not only for us, but for all countries of the world," Xi Jinping told his counterpart. "The international community expects China and the United States to properly regulate bilateral relations. Our meeting today has attracted the attention of the whole world. China and the United States should work with all countries to bring hope for world peace and confidence in global stability, to give impetus to joint development." Will these words of the Chinese leader be taken seriously in the United States? The question is rather rhetorical.

Gaps in the Great Anti-Chinese Wall

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The visit of the German Chancellor to China is just one of the evidences of the strengthening of Beijing and the fallacy of US policy. Olaf Scholz's trip to China caused outright irritation in the United States. The media space controlled by the Americans is full of cartoons in which Scholz goes to bow to the "Chinese emperor" or crawls half-bent like a dog to his "Chinese master". The press writes: the visit outlined a clear split in the ranks of the "anti-totalitarian" Western coalition. They assure that the Chinese leadership will not fail to take full advantage of it. The authoritative Chinese newspaper "Huangqiu Shibao" on this occasion noted: "Of course, this is definitely not the scheme of Sino-European relations that the United States wants to see, stuck in a vicious circle of containing China." According to the publication, before Scholz's visit to China, the hype in Germany around Chinese companies acquiring shares in the terminal in the port of Hamburg "undoubtedly brought "sinophobia" (not to be confused with "Russophobia" – approx. the author) to a new climax." "In Germany, the system of Sino-German cooperation and strategic partnership carefully built up over generations has become an "original sin." Speaking about Sino-German cooperation, some politicians are forced to call it a "threat to national security," writes Huanqiu Shibao. The wave of indignation in Europe is summed up by the French Le Figaro, which claims that the allies criticized German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for "acting contrary to the common European line." The author of the article is sure that "Berlin's policy towards Beijing can be successful only in one case if it is combined with the European one." In France, the visit of the German Chancellor caused particular offense due to the fact that the Chancellor personally refused to take President Macron with him to China, although in 2019, the French president, receiving Xi Jinping at the Elysee Palace, invited then German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to a meeting. But those were different times… Scholz, as if justifying himself, published an article in the American edition of Politico, in which he explains, among other things, that his trip to China is inaugural – the first after Xi Jinping's re-election to the post of CPC Secretary General, and is also timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of German-Chinese diplomatic relations. What does it have to do with Macron, they say? But the split, apparently, is still there. Germany, cut off from Russian energy resources and the Russian market, does not want to die quietly, putting ideology and politics ahead of economic interests, repeating a similar "circumcision" with China. This reluctance is evidenced by the numerous team of German business captains who accompanied Scholz in Beijing. It is characteristic that the visit was undertaken despite the shouts from Washington and the continuation of the US sanctions war against China. As you know, since mid-October, the Biden administration has actually banned trade with China in advanced semiconductor technologies, equipment for the production of microchips. A ban was also imposed on US citizens and green card holders to work with Chinese companies in this area. Commenting on these measures, the American press wrote that "overnight, the Chinese microchip industry was torn to shreds," and President Biden inflicted such damage on the Chinese economy as the customs and tariff war unleashed by his predecessor Trump did not cause. However, since then there has been no horrifying information about the mass flight of American top managers from Chinese high-tech companies. Although the American media claimed that at least 43 senior managers in 16 Chinese semiconductor companies holding positions from CEO to vice president are from the United States. Almost all of them moved to the Chinese chip industry after several years of working in Silicon Valley for American chip manufacturers or semiconductor equipment manufacturers. This was the result of purposeful actions of the Chinese leadership to attract foreign highly qualified specialists who received high salaries and ample opportunities for implementation in China. Some of them were attracted by such Chinese initiatives as the national program "Thousand Talents", which was put into effect by the Chinese government back in 2008. There is no data on the "collapse" of the Chinese semiconductor industry due to the ban on exports from the United States. Firstly, because besides the USA there are other leaders in this industry, in particular, the Netherlands and Japan. For example, chip manufacturing equipment currently accounts for more than 4% of Japan's total exports. Of these, about 970 billion yen is accounted for in China, equipment exports to China have grown by more than 600% over the decade. Will the Japanese agree to lose profits easily? There is also Taiwan, whose natives are happy to work in their historical homeland. In addition, the light did not come together with a wedge on American specialists. Some of them, under the threat of losing their citizenship, biting their elbows, will decide to quit a high-paying job, but techies from other countries and Chinese specialists will come to these places. The choice is this: with US citizenship, but without money and work. So far, there is no data on mass flight from China. In China, over half a million people work in this industry, many of whom studied in the West, but have been working in China for a long time, using the acquired knowledge and experience. A huge high-tech industry has been created in China, which is able to develop independently. Since 2014, 110 manufacturing associations producing semiconductor products have been opened in China. Now 38 more factories are being built. In 2020 alone, 22,800 startups were created in China that have some kind of relation to the semiconductor industry. So the measures taken by Biden are somewhat late. China has been preparing for their introduction for a long time. Now, according to the same Western media, the Chinese leadership is preparing additional answers. One of the steps is the creation of private–state enterprises, the entry of the state into the shareholders of private companies operating in this strategic area. For control and additional investment, if necessary. So American assessments of China are far from ideal, and actions to contain the PRC are unlikely to be as effective as they are presented in the West, and will achieve their goals. But they contribute to the consolidation of Chinese society, the growth of anti-Western sentiments, strengthen the determination of the Chinese people to prevent the humiliations that had to be accepted from the West in previous centuries and to give a worthy rebuff. This, by the way, also concerns the problem of Taiwan. Betting only on confrontation instead of the civilized competition offered by China can play a cruel joke with the United States and its allies. In the West, it is mistakenly believed that the re-election of Xi Jinping leads to the degradation of power and management systems in the PRC. Based on the ideas of democracy, again in its Western sense, they believe that Comrade Xi, as has already happened in China and other countries, will be mired in a cult of personality and will not be able to govern the country, and the PRC will slow down and rot. In general, this is an old song about China's "braking" in new ways. In fact, a strong leader, exposed to great powers and the trust of society, will be able to take such steps that no Western democracy is capable of. In addition, there will be no cult of personality in the previous sense. But it's not just about Xi Jinping. In the coming years, China expects an explosive effect from the huge investments that were made in previous decades in physical infrastructure and human capital. China is on the verge of a rapid flourishing of talents in science and technology, where huge investments have also been made. Since 2019, China has been conducting more research and development than the United States and Europe combined, and spending more money on it. A higher percentage of Chinese studies ranked among the top 1% of articles by citation in the world. China has long registered the largest number of patents in the world. Comparisons with the USSR of the 60s-70s are appropriate here, when investments in economic recovery, the creation of a modern industry affected, as a result, a breakthrough into space, an atomic project and rapid economic development took place. But these are not the last trump cards of the PRC in the confrontation that the Americans impose on the country. In general, the US trade restrictions on China are also late. On January 1, 2022, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world's largest free trade agreement, began operating. It includes ASEAN (the first Chinese trading partner – Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines), as well as 5 states with which ASEAN has already signed free trade agreements (Australia, China, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Japan). that it is not the US, but China that will soon determine the rules, open or close markets. And there is also the Chinese formula of "two circulations", which is mysterious for foreigners – a combination of domestic and foreign markets with an emphasis on the first. It led to the rapid growth of China's retail market, which increased from $2.3 trillion (much less than $3.9 trillion in America) in 2010 to $6 trillion in 2020 (exceeding $5.6 trillion in the United States). China has become a self-sufficient country, where sellers, investors, specialists, and capitals strive. So efforts to contain China will have the opposite effect. Perhaps Chancellor Scholz, going to Beijing, realized this. It is possible that he wants to try to adhere to the policy of "equal distance" from Washington and Beijing. And although it is too early to talk about a split in the Western coalition, as well as about the formation of the Beijing-Moscow-Berlin axis, it is nevertheless obvious that the rivalry between the United States and China is reaching a new level, and Washington's positions here are not as firm as it seems to him.

Violent games in Korea. For what and against whom?

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The US is provoking Pyongyang again, preparing the "death of the regime". On November 4, all Western and non-Western news agencies reported that the DPRK had lifted into the air about 180 military aircraft that were conducting maneuvers near the border with South Korea. South Korea, of course, reacted immediately – about 80 combat aircraft, including F-35 stealth aircraft, took off on alarm. Another round of high tension on the Korean peninsula has taken place. Now that North Korea possesses nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, this is fraught with unpredictable consequences. And near the borders of Russia. At the same time, in the West, of course, few people ask the question: what forces Pyongyang to conduct such military activity and what goal are the North Koreans pursuing at the same time? Meanwhile, the restoration of the chronology of events makes it easy to answer this question and explain the "inexplicable and unprovoked" actions of the DPRK. In particular, the demonstration of the capabilities of the North Korean air force on the night of November 4 is a response to the next large-scale US–South Korean maneuvers in close proximity to the borders of the DPRK. By the way, Pyongyang warned in advance that it could take decisive measures in response to the exercises. About 240 aircraft were simultaneously involved in these American-South Korean games under the conditional name "Vigilant Storm". Including 140 aircraft of the South Korean Air Force: F-35A, F-15K, KF-16 fighters, KC-330 tanker aircraft. On the American side – about a hundred aircraft, including F-35B fighters, EA-18 electronic intelligence aircraft, U-2 spy plane. For the first time, an Australian Air Force KC-30A tanker aircraft and an F-35B stealth fighter from Iwakuni Air Base in Japan were connected to the exercises in South Korea. On the ground, units of the Marines and ground forces of the United States and the Republic of Korea participated in the maneuvers. Moreover, the scenario of these exercises openly involves practicing strikes on decision-making centers in the DPRK and destroying infrastructure. And against this background, statements are being made from Washington and Seoul that they are preparing the death of the North Korean regime. Isn't this a blatant provocation and a direct threat that requires a reaction? By the way, 10-11 large-scale military exercises are held annually near the borders of the DPRK, which are directed against this country. One of them, held this year, which is literally called the "Butcher's Knife", was aimed at working out the destruction of the top military and political leadership of the DPRK. The logic of the United States and its allies in the region is as follows: the military exercises they conduct are "good", they should not be afraid, even if at any moment they can escalate into hostilities. We must sit quietly and wait for missiles and bombs to fall on Pyongyang, without even declaring an air alert. But the North Koreans are not ready to die quietly, so they demonstrate their determination to fight back against the aggressor and their readiness to defend their country with all available means. In particular, they are rehearsing an air force response. In the West, in turn, they say that they are forced to allegedly respond to North Korean missile launches and even a possible nuclear weapons test. But again, Pyongyang's actions are provoked by the inability of the United States and its allies and their veiled desire to hide their aggressive plans. After talks between US President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore in 2018, Pyongyang unilaterally refused to test nuclear weapons and their means of delivery in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions and the "new policy" of the United States towards the DPRK, the rejection of hostility. North Korea has even destroyed its nuclear warhead test site. But in fact, it turned out to be another American trick, the purpose of which was unilateral disarmament on the part of the DPRK. There has been no lifting of sanctions, as well as changes in Washington's attitude towards Pyongyang. The United States continued to equip South Korea with modern weapons and conduct large-scale military exercises near the borders of the DPRK, preparing for the physical elimination of the North Korean regime. During this period, new sanctions were also imposed against the DPRK (about 20). This once again showed Pyongyang (and those in the world who are able to reflect) that it is impossible to trust the leaders of the United States and South Korea, and the only way to protect the country or at least raise the threshold for aggression is to possess nuclear weapons and their means of delivery to the United States. This explains the frequent test launches of North Korean missiles in recent years, which usually coincide in time with the military maneuvers of the United States and its allies or are carried out in response to other unfriendly actions. It should be noted that the United States has repeatedly "thrown" Pyongyang, not fulfilling its obligations given during the negotiations. The North Korean nuclear weapons program itself arose at the end of the last century after the refusal of the next American administration from the so-called nuclear deal, according to which the United States pledged to build nuclear power plants in the DPRK. And also after Washington's refusal to withdraw nuclear weapons from the south of the Korean peninsula and give security guarantees to the DPRK. Do not forget that formally the DPRK and the United States are at war, the hot phase of which was on the Korean peninsula in 1950-1953. A few years ago, due to the hostile actions of the United States, as well as the refusal to sign a peace treaty, the DPRK announced that it did not consider itself bound even by a temporary armistice agreement. And why, if the United States does not withdraw its 30,000-strong military contingent from the south of the peninsula (possibly with nuclear warheads) and constantly conducts military maneuvers near the borders, threatening to eliminate the North Korean regime? After another escalation of tension caused by the US-South Korean "Vigilant Storm" maneuvers, on November 4, Washington invited Pyongyang to sit down at the negotiating table without any preconditions and discuss the nuclear-free status of the Korean peninsula. But this is nothing but a return to the well-forgotten old. And it is unlikely that the DPRK will accept such a proposal, which means the unilateral disarmament of the republic in the face of an impudent aggressor. Pyongyang remembers well how the flirtation with the West of such leaders as Gaddafi in Libya and Hussein in Iraq ended. And their own experience of communicating with the United States speaks of the insidiousness and incompetence of Washington, which understands only the language of force. In this situation, we can regretfully recall that Russia in previous years supported almost all the sanctions against the DPRK that were imposed by the UN. Thus, for the first time, our relations with a country with which Russia has an Agreement on friendship and cooperation were under international (and in fact – American) control. We have to account for every unit of goods delivered to the DPRK. Speaking out against the DPRK on international platforms, Russia was actually speaking out against its natural ally, a country created with our direct participation. In addition, we must also be aware that if the DPRK had not stood up against the United States in this endless war, which has lasted for more than 70 years, American troops would already be standing on the current border of the DPRK with Russia (albeit not very long). Now we ourselves have found ourselves under sanctions and have fully experienced the treachery and hypocrisy of the Western allies, who have actually unleashed a war against Russia. The DPRK leadership, in response to President Putin's congratulatory telegram on the day of the liberation of Korea from Japanese invaders on August 15, stated that this country and Russia are now on the same side of the front in the fight "against the military threat, provocations and self-will on the part of hostile forces." Recently, we have increasingly heard statements about the need to restore trade relations with the DPRK, despite all the sanctions imposed against this country. Not so long ago, a decision was made to resume railway communication with Pyongyang. Russia is taking cautious steps towards the DPRK. But what exactly needs to be done is to stop replicating Western assessments of this country and its actions in our media space. After all, we are talking about our natural ally, albeit a rather peculiar one. Everything that is being done against the DPRK is ultimately being done against Russia and China.

1 2