The most recent US-EU summit, which took place in Washington on October 19, and the official published results of the summit, provide a good opportunity to discuss certain rather general aspects of the current stage of the Great World Game.
First of all, it seems appropriate to once again comment on the representation of the state bodies participating in this event and, in general, the representation of countries belonging to the self-styled democratic camp (or the “light side” of the historical process). It is quite reasonable to ask who those persons were who sat down at the negotiating table in Washington, and what connection they have with the “USA” and “Europe” plates which, presumably, were on the table in front of them.
In the first place, of course, this question relates to the European representatives. Although in the US politicosphere one party group is publicly challenging the other, which has been in power since 2020: “Just who are you guys, and on what basis do you claim to speak in our name?” Which suggests some of the weaknesses in the democratic process that brought them into government.
As for Europe, the summit was attended by persons who assumed their current positions through procedures that had nothing to do with democracy at all. However, in recent years adherence to democratic procedures in Europe has been no stronger than in the United States.
As a consequence, the Federal Republic of Germany, still the Europe’s leading economic power, is now represented by a Green, mixed-sex political rabble. This group has replaced such significant political figures of post-war Germany as Willy Brandt, Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schröder and (with certain reservations) Angela Merkel, who really cared about Germany’s interests. Inevitably, they were forced to include significant elements of “Atlanticism” in their policies. But they were by no means mere proconsuls or Gauleiters for the latter.
Which is what we see in Germany now. Only this can explain the absolute indifference of its current leadership to the crime of the century, as a result of which the country lost both its most important infrastructural facility and the cheap gas supplied through it, which, in effect, had ensured that the German economy remained highly competitive. Moreover, the current German leadership is priding itself on the fact that it now buys gas at a significantly higher price. “At least we are not transferring our money to Putin who is waging a war of aggression in Ukraine and threatening our own existence.”
Here we should point out that the world is linked by all kinds of infrastructure facilities, including international facilities, which we can no longer live without. And, despite this fact, the destruction of one of the largest of these infrastructure facilities (a highly sinister precedent) is still not an issue of international political concern more than a year on, no international tribunal has been established to investigate it and, apparently, it was not even mentioned during the recent meeting in Washington. And, in fact, if the official titles of the participants in that meeting actually correspond in any way to their holders’ actual responsibilities to their governments, then this fact seems very strange.
But in reality there is nothing strange about it, as it is increasingly obvious that there is no such correspondence. On the international stage we see different actors playing roles of varying importance in a global drama that is threatening to develop into yet another (again, global) tragedy. The unleashing of which, by the way, is being promoted from different sides.
In the meantime, the playwrights and directors remain virtually out of the audience’s sight. And only by critically observing the action on stage can the audience guess, more or less reliably, what is actually intended. Thus, after an earthquake, experts can analyze the physical data recorded by seismometers, and conclude that under the Earth’s surface, at a depth too deep for any observations, two lithospheric plates must have collided, with one being forced under the other. Somehow, and for some reason (the plates never just stay put).
According to one common interpretation, all the events in the current stage of the historical process, starting from the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s, are part of a process which began at that time – namely the rearranging of the international order. According to this view, the process was boosted by a number of crises, including the collapse of the IT sector in the young Asian Tiger economies at the end of the 1990s, and a similar crisis a decade later in the United States, which is currently the world’s leading power.
But certain parties, it appears, felt that the above “natural” process was not proceeding fast enough or was not radical enough. The present author inclines towards the hypothesis that in order to accelerate this process, a new, much more radical (and more dangerous) phase was launched at the end of the last decade, starting with the high-profile Skripal case. (And, by the way, what happened to those Russian citizens?).
The Ukrainian conflict was then the next stage, marking a significant deterioration in international relations. More and more fuel is being heaped onto the fire that is heating the boiler where the Ukrainian project is cooking. Strangely enough, many of those living in that boiler seem to experience a masochistic pleasure from all this action. It seems that they believe that the long-awaited rain, in the form of reparations, will fall on them before the cook, stirring the broth, brings them to the right condition.
To judge by the results of the most recent US-EU summit, it appears that the countries in question will continue to throw this fuel onto the Ukrainian fire. Rather than using it to warm their own populations. In any event, that is the conclusion that can be drawn from the Joint Statement drawn up at the end of the summit. In the present author’s opinion, that document is extremely aggressive and uncompromising in everything that pertains to Russia and the Ukrainian conflict.
In contrast, the intentions and plans of the participants in the summit regarding China, which is, in effect, their current main geopolitical opponent, are set out in significantly more restrained language. In a pervious article, on the G7 summit in Hiroshima, NEO commented on the increasingly noticeable contrast in the rhetoric used in relation to these two partners, with their mutually supportive strategic positions.
Back then, it was assumed that the current “well-wishers” of China and Russia had decided to revive the alliance which had been so successful in the early 1970s, to judge by the results of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s trip to Beijing on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the implementation of China’s key Belt and Road Initiative, that trick will not work this time. Despite all the efforts made by both the US and the EU to achieve this.
Some commentators incline towards the view that the specific political focus of the Joint Statement drawn up at the end of the Washington summit was designed to distract attention from the parties’ latest failure to reach a compromise on areas of dispute relating to important aspects of bilateral trade and economic relations. These might include the increased tariffs on imports on semi-finished steel and aluminum products introduced by the Trump administration, or the recently introduced incentives for Americans to buy electric cars produced in the United States. But these explanations fail to address the stridently anti-Russian positions expressed by the participants in the Washington summit.
Finally, it should be noted that the present author by no means shares the view that the directors of the current international performance are in any way omnipotent. If only because, at least to a certain extent, they have to take into account the public mood in the countries where they are based, and they cannot afford to completely ignore the rules of the game they have established.
Especially the established “democratic” procedures for replacing actors. Meanwhile, in connection with the search for suitable replacement for the current actors (that is, actors who are best suited to play the roles intended by the directors) the alarm signal has already sounded. That signal was the results of the key regional elections in Germany.
As for the consequences of a return of the notorious troublemaker as the leader of the leading Western power, it is frightening to even imagine what might happen. As the head of the current US administration has put it “then all our achievements in the field of gender diversity would come to nothing.” One could add, and not just in that area. In that case it is highly likely that a number of values would be consigned to the ash heap of history, including the greenhouse gas emissions problem, the struggle for equal rights (say, the rights of parents and minor children, or the rights of humans and dogs) and a whole lot of other obsessions of the current half-witted liberal public.
Which has just over a year to wait. Until then, its main thing is to cause as much trouble on the international stage.
Incidentally, this is exactly what delegates of uncertain status were doing in Washington on October 19.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.