Mihail Morozov

The Island of bad Luck

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The visit of the Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan may be a turning point in Sino-American relations So, Pelosi went to Taiwan. Now many commentators are puzzling over why this visit was needed. As it turns out, there is no use from him to Taiwan: no additional weapons, no money, only moral support for the so-called "independence". At first glance, the visit was intended primarily for domestic consumption: on the eve of the midterm congressional elections, to correct the image of the Democratic Party. Also– to show the allies, and the whole world, that the United States is still "doing what they want", despite the risks, warnings and persuasions. A kind of gesture of a decrepit ruler, striving to retain power by any means. Of course, Washington would very much like to provoke China into a war with its blood brothers on the other side of the Taiwan Strait, which would undermine the image of the PRC as a peacemaker offering the world a negotiated solution to problems and the concept of a "common destiny of mankind." However, it is unlikely that the US secret services, the defense department and analysts have weakened so much that they do not calculate that China will not succumb to provocation. The Americans cannot fail to calculate how sensitive the Taiwan issue is for the Chinese and what a slap in the face they are inflicting on the leadership of the PRC, with whom, as follows from official statements, they would like to maintain stable, business relations. But, apparently, this staged provocation has much more far-reaching plans. Washington's childish references to the separation of powers should not be taken seriously: the visit was long and carefully planned with the participation of President Biden, who, as Commander-in-chief, of course, could have stopped it. Apparently, the White House and the surrounding area decided that it was time for more decisive action in the Chinese direction. Judging by Beijing's first reaction, it can be assumed that the visit will be a watershed in Sino-American relations: before and after. Actually, it was clear before that the separation of these two superpowers is inevitable and will precede their clash in one form or another. There was only one question– when? All of Beijing's policies and official statements were aimed at at least delaying this process, and at most – to carry out as much as possible with the least possible losses. And Americans see their interest in the opposite. For them, conflicts are a way to maintain their global dominance, and a conflict involving China also allows them to create problems for their main competitor. Ideally, another "proxy war". But if it doesn't work out, then there is a global divorce and a hybrid war in all directions. And where the curve of confrontation will steer. A hot war will also do, because, from Washington's point of view, we are talking about world domination, including an American-centric system of peace built on the power of the dollar and American bayonets. Putting a billion or two lives on the line is worth it. According to the idea of the United States, if there is a conflict, the sooner the better, until China has turned into such a dragon that even American superheroes cannot cope with. And so Biden decided to start first. Strictly speaking, the first was Trump, who unleashed a trade and economic war with China. Biden transferred it to the military-political and ideological plane. Judging by the signals from Beijing, there are no illusions left about Washington's sincerity and the correspondence of his words and real policy. This is evidenced by the consistency of the statements of various Chinese departments and their tone. "This is a serious violation of the one-China principle and the provisions of the three Sino-American joint communiques, a serious undermining of the political foundation of Sino-American relations, a gross encroachment on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which will harm peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait area, sends a purely erroneous signal to separatist forces advocating the so-called "Taiwan independence", – said the Chinese Foreign Ministry. And here is what is said in the official statement of the Office for International Affairs of the CPC Central Committee: "The attempt of separatist forces to achieve "Taiwan independence" is the biggest obstacle to the reunification of the Motherland and a serious potential danger to the revival of the Chinese nation. The administration of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) stubbornly defends the erroneous position aimed at "Taiwan independence", voluntarily serves as an instrument of anti-Chinese forces in the United States to contain China and even more brazenly commits provocations in an effort to achieve "independence". This is an absolutely incorrect judgment about the situation and a miscalculation in its relation. In its selfish interests, this administration stubbornly defies the "one China" principle, refuses to recognize the 1992 Consensus, foments confrontation between both sides of the Taiwan Strait, fixating on achieving so-called "independence" based on the United States. The actions of the DPP administration aimed at achieving "Taiwan independence" and its collusion with the United States, betraying China's national interests, will only plunge Taiwan into the abyss of disasters and bring deep suffering to Taiwanese compatriots. The reunification of the Motherland and the great revival of the Chinese nation have entered an irreversible historical process. The motherland must be and will certainly be reunited." Just a few days before Pelosi's visit, Biden once again swore to Xi Jinping in a telephone conversation that he was committed to the "one China" policy. But the visit itself showed the opposite. In fact, Pelosi visited one of the provinces of China without Beijing's knowledge, and this is about the same as if Vladimir Putin, without Washington's consent, came to the American Indians demanding the return of their ancestral lands. Now the Taiwanese are not to be envied. They and their desire for American democracy will become a bargaining chip and a starting point in this disengagement. It is on them that Beijing's anger will be primarily directed. "The People's Liberation Army of China, being on high alert, will take a number of targeted military actions to counteract this, will resolutely defend state sovereignty and territorial integrity, resolutely prevent interference by external forces and attempts by separatist forces advocating "Taiwan independence," the official representative of the Ministry of Defense of China said. Since August 3, a large-scale battle has unfolded around Taiwan, so far a training one: the People's Liberation Army of China is conducting maneuvers, the scenario of which is very similar to a naval and air blockade. Chinese warships, including aircraft carriers, practice combat maneuvers near the Taiwanese coast, and combat aircraft patrol in Taiwan's air defense zone. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi canceled scheduled talks with his Japanese counterpart because of Japan's position on Taiwan. And these are just the first flashes of this battle. Against this background, hardly anyone paid serious attention to the message that, as a first step of influencing separatist forces in Taiwan, the PRC banned the supply of ordinary fossil sand to the rebellious island. Despite its apparent simplicity, this news shows how serious the consequences of the visit are and how firm Beijing's intentions are. After all, 90% of the sand, without which the entire construction industry will stand up, is supplied to Taiwan, as well as to Hong Kong and Macau, from mainland China. There is no concrete without sand, and without concrete you cannot build high-rise buildings that prevail on an island with a population of 23 million people, an area equal to one of our small regions. But this is not as painful as the possible shutdown of the famous Taiwanese semiconductor industry, which provides almost half the world with its products. After all, the basis of semiconductors is silicon, which is also extracted from ordinary sand. And fiber optic cables and many other things that can not do without silicon. Of course, sand can be brought, for example, from the USA, if there is no blockade of the island. But then the sand will become golden, and semiconductors are even more expensive… And this is just the beginning. The total trade turnover of China with Taiwan is about 380 million US dollars, twice as much as with Russia. There are thousands of Taiwanese companies operating in China, using cheaper Chinese labor and China's simplified tax regimes. For many years, China has been building close economic ties with the island, hoping thus to return Taiwan "to the bosom of the motherland." But now that it has become clear that, despite all the warnings, Taipei likes American democracy, which, in fact, offers nothing but war with the mainland, the Taiwanese will have to overestimate the benefits of ties with the PRC, and perhaps find out their real cost. Author: Mikhail Morozov, columnist of the newspaper "Trud"

At the Taiwanese line

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The last days have become the point of the highest tension between China and the United States since, perhaps, the Korean War. Beijing responded to the intention of the Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to pay a visit to Taiwan extremely harshly, showing that in this way Washington crosses the red line. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that in the event of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, Beijing will take all measures to protect the state sovereignty and integrity of the country. The classic phrase preceding the use of force was deciphered by the official speaker of the Foreign Ministry, Zhao Lijian: "China has recently repeatedly expressed serious concern to the United States and stated its firm position, which is that Beijing strongly opposes the visit of Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan." "The responsibility for all the serious consequences arising from this will be fully borne by the United States," the diplomat stressed. The Ministry of Defense of the People's Republic of China promised to fight separatism on the island "by all means" and "not to sit idly by" if the trip takes place. According to the representative of the Chinese defense ministry Tan Kefei, Pelosi's visit will seriously violate the principle of "one China" and the provisions of the three joint Sino-American communiques. Despite this, a US Navy carrier strike group led by the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, armed with 90 aircraft and helicopters, entered the South China Sea, and China began military exercises with live firing in nearby areas. Missile units were additionally deployed to Fujian Province. For greater clarity, the Chinese conducted a demonstration launch of a DF-17 ballistic missile with a hypersonic warhead. The fact that the post "Preparing for war" in the account of the 80th army of the PLA, responsible for the defense of this region, caused a strong approving reaction in Chinese social networks speaks about the intensity of passions: "PLA soldiers, fight! We support you guys!". And army veterans in social networks have massively stated that they are ready to return to service if the Motherland demands it. Chinese military experts predicted the introduction of a no-fly zone over Taiwan to prevent the visit. This development, according to CNN, was also seen by Biden's closest advisers in the White House. And the former editor-in-chief of the Chinese English-language Global Times, Hu Xijin, known for radical views, in his account even suggested shooting down a plane with Pelosi on approach to Taiwan, as an aircraft that violated the state border. All this took place against the background of preparations for the celebration of the 95th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army of China. At a solemn meeting of the CPC Central Committee, Chinese President Xi Jinping paraphrased a catch phrase from Confucius: only those who are ready to fight can stop the battle, and those who are ready for war should not start it. And he called for strenuously continuing the modernization of the PLA in accordance with the international situation. In this very environment, Pelosi classified the program of her tour. With reference to anonymous sources, there were reports about the cancellation of a trip to Taiwan. Then it came from Taiwan: Pelosi is still coming. Sources in Beijing are inclined to believe that the visit to Taiwan will still be canceled. The stakes are too high and the risk is too high. It remains to wait a few days, and we will find out how events will unfold. Let's hope that it won't come to an armed conflict. But there are plenty of signs that the American provocation was prepared in advance and that such things will be repeated until the goal is achieved – to force China to start hostilities against its blood brothers on the other side of the Taiwan Strait, actually against the province belonging to the PRC. Firstly, Pelosi's visit was originally planned for April and did not take place due to her illness, read - the beginning of a special operation in Ukraine, when all Washington's attention was switched to anti–Russian sanctions and assistance to Kiev. Despite the fact that Beijing warned Washington through all possible channels that this time the matter could go very far, the Americans did not stop preparing for a provocation. At the same time, Biden personally tried to reduce the heat or show that he was not ready for war. "The military thinks it's not a good idea right now," he said last week about the possibility of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. Even when Pelosi's visit was announced, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Biden had a telephone conversation. "We strongly oppose separatism – "Taiwan independence", as well as interference by external forces, and we will never leave room for Taiwan independence forces in any form. The position of the Chinese Government and the Chinese people on the "Taiwan issue" has been consistent and more than 1.4 billion Chinese are determined to resolutely defend China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity. You can't go against public opinion. Playing with fire, you will set yourself on fire," China Central Television CCTV quoted the President of the People's Republic of China. As reported by CCTV, President Biden, in turn, said during the conversation that today's world is in a critical period, and cooperation between the United States and China is beneficial not only to them, but also to the peoples of other countries. The United States hopes to maintain dialogue with China, strengthen mutual understanding, seek cooperation in areas where interests coincide, and properly resolve differences. "I would like to repeat that the US 'one China policy' has not changed and will not change, and the US does not support the 'independence' of Taiwan," Biden vowed once again. Despite this, the probing of Beijing's red lines continued. It seems that the White House is finding out whether Beijing is really "teetering on the brink of war", seeking to cancel Pelosi's trip, and what he really intends to do. On the battlefield, the enemy's air defense system is provoked in such a way that a preemptive strike is launched at the moment of the outbreak of hostilities. Dave Butler, a representative of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the military informs decision-makers in Washington about possible risks. "We warn what the enemy can do, discuss logistics, military plans and readiness." And on the eve of the assistant to the US President for National Security, Jake Sullivan, avoided answering a direct question whether the US would be ready to defend Taiwan militarily if necessary. "Our policy has not changed. We maintain strategic uncertainty," Sullivan traditionally responded. "As part of this policy of creative tension, we have been maintaining peace and stability around the Taiwan Strait for decades." By the way, the former US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper (2019-2020), who made his way to Taiwan as part of the American NGO Atlantic Council, criticized this uncertainty on the eve: "In my personal opinion, the policy based on the "one China principle" has outlived itself, it is time to move away from strategic ambiguity." According to Esper, it is China that poses the greatest challenge for Western countries. However, the problem with the American policy of "strategic uncertainty", in his opinion, is that the United States does not directly say whether they will be ready to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. That is, it is proposed to make it clear unequivocally: the United States will defend Taiwan by all means. And then Europe, which is usually restrained in relation to Taiwan, gave its voice. "In the event of a military invasion, we have made it very clear that the EU, together with the United States and its allies, will introduce similar or even more extensive measures than we have now taken against Russia," said EU Ambassador to China Jorge Toledo. And the UK offered to jointly arm the Taiwanese regime. What is in the dry residue? Convinced of the futility of the strategy of "color revolutions" to defeat China, the United States found another Achilles heel of Beijing and shifted the center of gravity to Taiwan. The Taiwan problem is the most acute from the point of view of the Chinese leadership. His official plans are to return the island to the bosom of his homeland, but preferably peacefully. A military solution to this issue is the most extreme and undesirable option for the PRC. Especially on the eve of the twentieth Congress of the CPC (congresses are held every five years), at which the issue of extending Xi Jinping's stay at the head of state and the party will be resolved. In addition, the outbreak of hostilities at one point would change the world image of the PRC, its foreign policy, built on solving problems "peacefully and diplomatically." Taiwan has been a hotbed of intense tension more than once. But now the situation is critical. Washington is forcing Xi Jinping to make difficult choices and abandon many plans. And the Chinese leader has no right to slack off. Author: Mikhail Morozov, columnist of the newspaper "Trud"

Boycott illusion

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text The meeting of foreign ministers of the G-20 countries held in Bali can be considered as a rehearsal for the November summit of the heads of state of this organization. Without forcing the current chairman of the "Big Twenty" Indonesia not to invite Russian representatives at all, Western countries tried to organize a boycott of Russia already in the process. Well, or, at least, turn the G-20 platform – originally an economic forum – into a place of flagellation of our country and lamentations about Ukraine. But again it turned out that only half of the members are ready to follow the instructions of the "Washington regional committee". And the rest not only do not support Western aspirations, but are also perplexed about the fact that the world economy, which is not in the best position, is being replaced by pure politics, and frankly self-serving and one-sided. Western countries tried to compensate for diplomatic failures at the forum with media scandals. As the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova testified, at the command of the White House press service, Western journalists were thrown into counting the time that certain delegates were absent from the meeting room, and they tried to pass it off as a boycott of the Russian delegation. The technique is not new, such attempts have already been made at other international venues, for example at the meeting of financial authorities and the annual meeting of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov used the summit to hold bilateral meetings with colleagues from friendly countries and did not worry about the hysteria of Westerners. "The Indonesian side organized a welcome reception with a concert. Western colleagues did not come there. This is their desire, understanding of the protocol and the rules of ethics," the Russian Foreign Minister commented on the behavior of his opponents. And in his official speech, he emphasized multilateral cooperation and the non-use of force in international affairs. And it is not his "merit" that the West has long been listening to no one but itself. For the same reason, the summit ended in vain: without a final communique, without a collective photo. The main result is that the meeting took place despite attempts to boycott. In principle, the alignment of forces was known before. But Westerners, who cherish illusions about prolonging the life of the American-centric world, apparently expected a change in the position of the largest countries, primarily India and China. But nothing like that happened. Accordingly, the rest of the "non-aligned" and those who did not take the "right side of history" also did not join the boycott attempts. It is characteristic that one of the main bilateral meetings in Bali – between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Secretary of State Blinkin – took place after the official speech of the head of Chinese diplomacy at the summit. That is, the Chinese representative first repeated the initial, fundamental points for a conversation with his American counterpart, and then went to a personal meeting with him. For example, opposing the Americans acting "according to the rules," Wang Yi recalled that "there is only one system in the world, and this is the international system, at the center of which is the UN." In his speech, the Chinese Foreign Minister, in defiance of Westerners, focused on purely economic problems. He once again called for the main attention to be paid to economic growth and for this not to destroy, but to strengthen free trade and supply chains, to abandon trade sanctions and discrimination. These topics, as well as the fight against poverty and the pandemic, green development, which Wang Yi spoke about, probably caused an attack of boredom among Western colleagues. They would like to hear from the head of Chinese diplomacy something new about Ukraine. But they heard again what, as eyewitnesses say, made the muscles of the members of the American delegation play harder than ever. The Chinese minister reiterated that the PRC is against escalation, stands for a ceasefire and a settlement of the conflict at the negotiating table. "If we put our security above the security of other countries and strengthen military blocs, it will only split the international community, weakening our protection," Wang Yi said. And again he spoke in favor of a "serious and comprehensive dialogue" between Russia and Europe to create a "balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture." That is, 100 percent supported Russia, which is seeking the same thing. It was against this background that the meeting of the heads of Chinese American diplomacy took place. Judging by the duration – more than 5 hours – it was not easy. Comparing the statements and reports on the negotiations of the two sides, it can be concluded that attempts to put pressure on China and force it to stand "on the right side of history" have failed again. Apparently, Wang Yi, as has happened before in such negotiations, was patiently silent when Secretary Blinken tried to call his Chinese counterpart "to order" and refuse to support Russia. There is reason to assume that the United States mistakenly believes that China is capable of influencing Russia on the Ukrainian issue. But Beijing at the very top has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that Russian-Chinese relations are not influenced by third parties and are relations of sovereign powers. For his part, Wang Yi pointed to the fundamental misunderstanding of China on the part of the United States and urged the interlocutor to "stop slandering the PRC, attacking its political system and giving signals of support for Taiwan's independence." On the latter issue, the US diplomatic positions look particularly pale. The Biden administration has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to the "one China" principle enshrined in the fundamental Sino-American documents. But the practical policy of the United States with this principle is increasingly diverging. And Wang Yi does not miss the opportunity to slap the Americans on the cheeks every time, pointing out their support for separatism in Taiwan and the supply of weapons there. According to Chinese sources, the topic of Taiwan occupied a considerable part of the bilateral conversation. But the parties, apparently, did not come to a common denominator. The United States does not intend to abandon its provocative policy towards Taiwan in order to have leverage over China and the ability to manage the situation in this region. Washington's other negotiating positions are equally weak. After all, in order to get something from the Chinese, you have to offer them something. And what? Now the United States is increasingly dependent on the supply of Chinese products. To abandon Chinese imports means to further accelerate inflation, which has already reached record levels. The trade duties imposed by the Trump administration exacerbate the problem. Biden would be happy to reduce or cancel them, but he doesn't know how. As you know, not so long ago he instructed his advisers to study this issue and submit a plan to reduce duties that would allow Washington to save face and improve the economic situation on the eve of the midterm elections to Congress and the Senate. As a result, Wang Yi put forward, as stated in the official message of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, "four lists: a list of requests to the United States to correct its erroneous policies, words and actions regarding China, a list of key cases of concern to the Chinese side, a list of China-related bills of key concern to the Chinese side, and a list of cooperation in eight areas between China and the United States." One of the issues that may have been discussed during the Sino-American talks was the likely meeting of the Chinese President and the US president at the G-20 summit of heads of state in November this year. What the result is is still unknown. But we can assume that the situation that developed at the meeting of foreign ministers will be repeated in the autumn. There will be negotiations, but there is no result.

Collective East versus collective West?

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text Supporters of real politics in the United States heralded the beginning of the Cold War-2, which will go without rules and from a position of strength. Recently, the voices of American supporters of the so-called "real politics" have been breaking into the media space (largely due to the attention to such opinions in Russia). This does not mean that they somehow influence the real policy of the current American administrations, which proceed from one message - ensuring the imperial ambitions of the United States at any cost. These people only point out new circumstances in the world from time to time, which official Washington diligently ignores. One of the mastodons of this trend – former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – in his interview with Spectator magazine had to justify himself for the fact that in his speech before the Davos Forum he inadvertently called on Kiev (and the whole West) to reckon with reality in Ukraine and around it. The main message of Kissinger is that ignoring the obvious things can lead to the involvement of the West in the war and the beginning of a global conflict. "The purpose of the Davos statement was to indicate that the issue of military objectives should be resolved before the momentum of war makes it politically unmanageable," explains old man Henry. But then Kissinger's sense of reality changes: "If the allies manage to help the Ukrainians expel the Russians from the territory they conquered in this war, they will have to decide how long the war should last." And this suggests that even such "realists" in the United States do not feel the ground under their feet, being corrupted by the long-term dominance of the United States and the collective West. "I am an instinctive supporter of the belief that America – with all its flaws – was a force for good in the world and indispensable for the stability of the world," says Kissinger. That's all the realism of these people who forget that the United States has been conducting special operations around the world for decades, destabilizing and plunging entire regions into chaos – from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Ukraine. And all in the name of ensuring the interests of the United States, and not to protect mythical human rights. Apparently, the interest in "old Henry" in the United States is explained, among other things, by the fact that he, along with President Nixon, managed to drive a wedge between the USSR and China. The famous "secret" visit of this couple to Beijing and the 1972 communique just turned 50 years old. This led to the fact that the USSR had to confront both the West and China at the same time and, as a result, to the collapse of the country. Now this experience would be very useful to Washington in order to destroy the alliance of Russia and China, which is increasingly scaring the United States, but thoughts about which they drive like a nightmare. Kissinger does not give practical advice on this part. Instead, it is done by another supporter of "real politics" – Charles Kupchan, a senior researcher at the Council on Foreign Relations of the United States, in an article published on July 3 in The National Interest magazine. His message: The United States and its partners must temper their idealistic ambitions and prepare for a new and challenging era of great Power rivalry. And their efforts to counter the "authoritarian bloc" should be supplemented with strategic pragmatism, necessary in order to navigate in a world that, even if more unmanageable, is also irreversibly interdependent. "Russia's special military operation in Ukraine contributes to the arrival of a more dangerous multipolar world that will live according to the traditional rules of power politics. Throughout the post-Cold War era, there was no open confrontation between the great powers: because of the indisputable primacy of the United States, it was out of the question. Gradually, the unipolar international system began to transform into a world with a wider distribution of power, but this change occurred gradually – in parallel with the strengthening of China and other Eastern countries," Kupchan writes. Based on the postulates of real politics, the author of National Interest recommends abandoning the "globalization of liberalism" around the world, from ruinous wars to promote democracy and switch to circular defense: "The Russian special operation has rekindled the militarized confrontation between Russia and the West. And Moscow's strategic partnership with Beijing means that within the framework of the second Cold War, the West will have to face a Sino-Russian bloc stretching from the western part of the Asia-Pacific region to Eastern Europe. As during the first Cold War, the strategy of patient deterrence should be aimed at preserving geopolitical stability and protecting the liberal international order, not at expanding it." "Now the West needs to moderate its idealistic ambitions, realize that it lives in a world of confrontation of all against all, and once again adopt a strategy based on real politics," Kupchan recommends. It is already good that the author saw that only 40 countries of the world supported sanctions against Russia and opposed its actions in Ukraine: "Many states, especially the states of the global South, will be on the sidelines, and not support any of the blocs. Since about two-thirds of the world's countries trade more with China than with the United States, most countries may consider it right to follow, in fact, the path of non-alignment, as a result of which the developing world will become more multipolar than bipolar in nature and practice." But the political scientist does not go beyond this realism. No consideration of new realities is visible, as well as consideration of security interests and the balance of power. The means of protecting "stability" (read – American interests) are still the same: an increase in military presence primarily in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region. Along with the rejection of the promotion of "human rights", it is proposed to move away from the division of the world into democracies and autocracies, to be friends, regardless of regimes and ideology. Just to annoy the main enemy – Russia and China more. As for China, there are Kissinger's patterns of driving a wedge without taking into account new realities: "The West should seek to weaken the emerging Sino-Russian bloc, looking for ways to increase the distance between Moscow and Beijing. Because of the special operation in Ukraine, Russia has just become economically and strategically dependent on China; Russian leader Vladimir Putin will hardly like being an assistant to his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. Atlantic democracies should take advantage of the Kremlin's discomfort that it is becoming a junior partner of China, signaling that Russia may choose the West. Russia needs China more than China needs Russia, so the West should also seek to distance Beijing from Moscow." There are more illusions than reality. How it is possible to offer Russia a Western choice after unleashing a hybrid war against it, after the confiscation of assets, massive arms supplies to Ukraine is not clear. So, from the main point: The Cold War – 2 will be much tougher than the first version and will take place in a world dominated by force, not international law and agreements. American realists do not see any other options, including abandoning hegemonism and returning to detente. Not to mention those who rule the White House. The Chinese newspaper Hongqiu Shibao, part of the People's Daily Holding, the main party publication of the CPC, recently joined this discussion about real politics: "The West is only part of the international community, and the international community is not only Western countries. In fact, it represents the totality of all the states of the world whose sovereignty is recognized and who can participate on an equal basis in the discussion and management of global affairs, therefore, the United States and Western countries have no right to represent the international community. The narrative of the USA and the West is not world public opinion." And more: "The position of the United States and the West does not coincide with the position of the world. Instead of reconsidering its own mistakes and taking responsibility for NATO's expansion to the East and the deterioration of European security, the United States is dragging its allies into a "group battle", sticking its political labels on everything around it and mixing truth and lies." The main reality here is that China is not the same as it was 50 years ago, when Kissinger inclined it towards "freedom and democracy". This reality is that ideologically and geopolitically, China and Russia "stand back to back" in the words of Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Serbian political scientist Ivan Payovich wrote about the new reality not so long ago: "The concept of the collective East is gradually entering the lexicon of geopolitics as an antipode to the concept of the collective West, which has been used for a long time. It is now that this collective East is beginning to inflict more and more tangible blows on the weak points of the Western economy. At the same time, the collective West is sinking deeper and deeper into internal contradictions between the countries that form it. The United States wants to deceive Europe by selling its energy resources at exorbitant prices. Turkey opposes the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO. Hungary cooperates with Russia, despite sanctions, and Germany tries in every way not to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine and pays billions of dollars for gas and oil to Russia. New packages of sanctions are becoming increasingly difficult to accept, as their consequences very quickly return like a boomerang." Does the collective East enter into a struggle with the collective West?

There is no G-20 without Russia

Note: this is a machine translation from the original Russian text Attempts to isolate Moscow in major international organizations are failing. In recent days, the world's media have been actively discussing what happened in Washington. And there, as many Russian media reported, among others, "representatives of Western countries left the meeting room of the annual meeting of finance ministers and heads of central banks during the speech of Russian Finance Minister Siluanov." They announced a boycott of Russia, you know. The news was readily replicated with reference to the American newspaper "Washington Post". She, in turn, refers to unnamed participants of the meeting and to the tweet of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Canada, Hristya Freeland, an ethnic Ukrainian, by the way. Judging by her biography and behavior, she is a worthy heiress of the Bandera underground, who moved massively overseas after World War II and settled there. "At least half a dozen world leaders, including representatives of the US and Ukrainian governments (!), left the G20 meeting in Washington when Russian officials began to speak," the American newspaper writes pathosily. Initially, this story was promoted as a coordinated large-scale action of the "democratic world" to once again take Russia away. According to the laws of information warfare, a tear was even started. Freeland heartbreakingly reported that her father's house in the city of Makarov, Kiev region, where the Minister of Finance of Ukraine Marchenko is from, was destroyed by "Russian barbarians". And, of course, in this regard, it is necessary to meet his tearful request for financial assistance. Freeland was so moved that she did not notice that Marchenko was promoted to "world leaders", thereby confirming: "the tail turns the dog" (straight from an old American movie). This exalted lady agreed to the point that, addressing representatives of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Central Bank of Russia, she urged them to "either convince President Putin to stop the war, or leave their posts in the Russian government," following the example of Anatoly Chubais. Because they, de, "serve the government that has committed war crimes," and Chubais is a model of nobility from the point of view of the Western world. At first, all this in the information field, including with the support of the Russian media, looked like a prepared, planned boycott. To enhance the effect, it was on the day of the meeting that the US Treasury imposed sanctions against the deputy chairmen of the Central Bank of Russia, Ksenia Yudaeva and Mikhail Alekseev, as well as Deputy Finance Minister Vladimir Kolychev. However, then the news began to deflate. It turned out that Freeland's emotional impulse was followed by representatives of only three countries: the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands. Ukraine does not count, because the Big Twenty is an organization that includes countries with the largest economies, and Ukraine was not even close there. Therefore, the participation of two of its representatives in the meeting at once is a home amateur activity of the United States and others like them. Then it turned out that, for example, the Italians flatly refused to politicize the G20 event. This was followed by explanations from the financial leaders of Germany and Japan, who were forced, as if apologetically, to explain that they did not leave the meeting because they really wanted to personally listen to Minister Siluanov, and then sharply respond to him. However, there were no answers, as the Russian representative reminded the audience that the Group of 20 is responsible for stability on the planet, including financial stability. And what Western countries are doing can lead to big problems all over the world, including for the initiators of the sanctions war. He also reminded that the G-20 is an economic organization, not a political one, and it is inappropriate to discuss Ukraine's issues and Russia's behavior here. What can you object to? It also turned out that the French representatives did not join the boycott either. So what kind of boycott is it if only 4 out of 20 countries supported it? But as proof of the success of the demonstration, Freeland posted a photo on Twitter where the aforementioned fellow gentlemen lined up in the foyer in front of the camera. However, there is nothing to confirm that they were there at the time of Siluanov's speech. It looks very much like this photo was taken at the end of the event. And later the idea came to use it by declaring a "boycott". And perhaps this idea was suggested in one of the American centers of information warfare. The fact is that the format of these meetings does not imply the constant presence of all members of the delegation, since they usually last for many, many hours. Heads and representatives, having spoken, often go to negotiations, to have a snack, to the toilet, finally. And this is not considered a bad thing, and even more so a boycott. If the finance ministers and the heads of the central banks of the USA, Canada and the UK and others, all as one (as they promised before the G-20 meeting) did not come to Washington because of Russia's participation, that would be a boycott. But they came like cute ones, because they knew that their absence would not have affected the event in any way, in which real world leaders participate in addition to them - China, India, Indonesia (chairman), South Africa and others who represent more than half of humanity. At the end of the article, the Washington Post bitterly notes that the nervous attempts to boycott are nothing more than a demonstration of a "dramatic split" in the world over whether to condemn Russia or not." Not everyone agrees with this, the authors admit. Of course! We must pay tribute to the Russian representatives, they demonstrate composure and do not react to provocations in the style of "the fool himself". In general, Western ministers should be taught how to behave on international platforms, so as not to turn them into a show, a farce for the needs of Ukrainian nationalists. But the Chinese did it for the Russians. "We believe that the G-20 and other international institutions are platforms for discussing international economic and financial issues. "This is not a suitable place to discuss the Ukrainian issue," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on April 22, "The members of the Group should adhere to a responsible approach, avoid politicization and militarization of international cooperation and bring more stability to a world facing multiple challenges." The sessions of the governing bodies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which were held there, in Washington, also demonstrated that the Western dictate does not pass. The attempt of Western countries to include provisions condemning Russia in the final documents encountered the harsh disagreement of the majority: 14 vs. 11. And where? In the IMF and the World Bank, where the influence of the United States and its allies seems to be limitless. As a result, the documents were not accepted at all. And the idea of excluding Russia from these structures has not found support from the majority of member countries. As you can see, nothing is working out for the West with the idea of excluding Russia from the G-20, of which US President Biden is an ardent supporter. He has already been reminded by other members of the G20, including China, that the organization was created on the basis of consensus as an economic forum of the largest countries in the world. There is no exclusion mechanism, in other words, it is impossible to "cancel" or "ban" Russia, in fact it is and will be. And Indonesian Finance Minister (chairman of the G-20 in 2022) Mulyani said in Washington that "the G20 countries are in favor of continuing multilateral cooperation within the framework of the forum, despite widespread criticism of Russia on Ukraine." And this is despite the pressure of the United States, which demands that Indonesia not allow Russia to participate in the annual G20 events and especially Vladimir Putin in the G-20 summit of heads of state. Press Secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov said earlier that Russia will make a decision to participate in the G20 leaders' forum in Jakarta, focusing primarily on the position of the host country, that is, Indonesia. If we take into account that Washington and some of its allies "threaten" not to go to Jakarta if Vladimir Putin goes there, it may turn out that world problems will be discussed without them. Although it is unlikely that the West will decide to do this, fearing that it will be isolated itself, and, most likely, may go to a reduction in the level of representation. That's how it suddenly turns out that the unipolar world, based on the dictate of the United States, ends its existence. The West is losing its monopoly on decision-making in key international structures. Author: Mikhail Morozov, columnist of the newspaper "Trud".