Biden, Johnson and the contours of a new geopolitical alignment

The transatlantic voyage of the British Prime Minister this week would have been quite a routine event – even though he had a chance to address the UN General Assembly, if not for a few “buts”

Biden, Johnson and the contours of a new geopolitical alignment

First, Boris Johnson, during a conversation with the American president in his oval office in the White House, found himself in an almost unprecedented situation. At the moment when he began to answer a question from one of the journalists, a team of employees of the press relations department began with loud shouts to send the entire pool of journalists out of the office. Johnson looked a little dumbfounded, but to what extent is difficult to judge, since both he and Biden had masks covering the half of his face.

Secondly, Biden Johnson did not say anything specific about the conclusion of a trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, although the British Prime Minister had and remains the most “trump card” argument in favor of Brexit. And in general, there were serious doubts about Joe Biden’s sanity, and to such an extent that The Spectator decided to take an unprecedented step as well. In the latest issue of the magazine, an article by the head of the American editorial board has been published, in which the question of mental health is put bluntly without any bluntness.

And, thirdly, Johnson received another batch of lamentation about his slide “to the left” and betrayal of the Thatcher covenants. Now, instead of the more or less honorable nickname “British Trump” (which Trump himself gave him) or sarcastically derogatory – “mini-Trump” (as the French press dubbed him), he began to pass under the nickname “mini-Biden”. Taking into account the previous point, this characteristic looks quite sad, you must agree.

However, in order. The embarrassment with the expulsion of journalists from the Oval Office at a time when Johnson uttered only the first phrase in response to someone’s question still had consequences. The head of one of the journalistic associations located in the presidential pool sent a formal complaint to the head of the press service of the American president, Jen Psaki, who is well known to everyone. In response, she stated that she knew nothing and transparently hinted that Johnson unplanned began to answer questions. Therefore, it is as if he himself is to blame. Either she was joking, or she was like that. Whichever option you choose, both are worse.

Because the American editor of The Spectator, Amber Athey, asked a natural question:

“Can you imagine what an international scandal would have happened if British civil servants did not allow the President of the United States on his trip abroad to answer questions from the press of his own free will?”

I can’t imagine this for sure, but I will try, I will assume that in this case the American president himself would go to the journalist who asked the question – and Bush, and Clinton, and even more so – Trump. But with Biden, bad luck comes out.

Aatee’s article is demonstratively ruthless in relation to Biden as a person who was elected to the most important post not only in the United States, but throughout the world at an age that was completely inappropriate for this post. This is reflected in the fact that he confuses or completely forgets the names of his interlocutors. Forgetting once again the name of Australian Prime Minister Scott Morison, he got by with such a turn – “that guy over there”.

But all right, only problems with memory for faces, notes Amber Athey. Much worse is the fact that Biden, judging by his speech at the UN General Assembly, lives in some kind of reality of his own. He said that he had restored good relations with all US allies just a few days after the United States, together with Australia and Britain that joined them, literally “threw” France for almost $8 tens of billions by intercepting an order for the construction of nuclear submarines. Then France recalled its ambassador from Washington!

And this is indeed a disturbing symptom if the head of a powerful superpower, claiming to have monopoly control over the world, declares something exactly the opposite of reality. Or he simply reads what the “assistants” de facto governing the States have written to him. This forces Amber Athey – an American – to speak out to her president extremely harshly:

“Biden’s deteriorating mental health can be even more dire than we realize if his employees allow themselves to treat world leaders with blatant disrespect, preventing them from reaching out to the press. Their actions are more befitting of an authoritarian regime than a country whose constitution guarantees freedom of the press. Until now, many members of the mainstream media have argued that it is cruel to ask a question about Biden’s mental state. But is it much worse to pretend that nothing happens when our Supreme Commander-in-Chief regularly substitutes and humiliates our country on the world stage?”

I emphasize that this is written by an American, although she is the chief editor of the American version of the British magazine The Spectator! And it can be understood – “it is insulting for the state” happens not only to us. And in light of such a description of the American president, how should the new nickname “mini-Biden”, which was invented by the editor of the monthly Spectator World magazine, Freddy Gray, should now be perceived? The role of Biden falling into dementia in miniature for Boris Johnson is clearly not a winning engagement. Although his some extravagances may lead an independent observer to the idea that the analogy with the 46th American president is not so unfounded. The matter has not yet reached the point of forgetting the names of foreign prime ministers, but, say, the promise to change his name Boris to Borey during his speech before the UN General Assembly is somewhere on the verge!

Of course, Boris Johnson has always had a particularly expressive and sometimes really witty language. But pushing our green agenda, which includes the complete elimination of fossil fuels and the transition to renewable energy – in this case, wind power – in such a playful way … But while Johnson is still Boris, back to the question of the mini-Biden.

One of the reasons that prompted Freddie Gray to such an assimilation is that both Biden himself and his “mini” on the opposite side of the Atlantic are fans of the “green agenda”. And, as you know, all the “green” – to one degree or another, people of leftist views. And what is natural for the Democrat Biden (for all the specifics of American “leftism”) does not seem entirely natural for the conservative Johnson. But, as Johnson himself stubbornly argues, this is becoming more and more natural. His policy of increasing public debt, increasing taxes to further improve the national health system, building housing, railways, etc. – all this is actually the implementation of the Labor agenda. And, from the point of view of the Orthodox Thatcherists, there is a departure from conservative principles, leading to the self-destruction of the Tories.

As one British political journalist concluded, there are now not two, but one party in the country with a common view of the economy but different views of culture. Of course, this sounds beautiful, but it is still a strong exaggeration. Freddie Gray, finding similarities between Biden and Johnson, refers to the fact that both politicians benefit greatly, having scattered and discouraged “forces” as opposition. Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections will have to prove that they were not broken by the loss of the presidential election and the complete takeover of Congress by the Democrats. And the Laborites, defeated in the December 2019 elections, will have to solve the same problem in, presumably, early elections in 20 months. But for now, everything seems to be all right.

However, Freddie Gray warns:

“But the absence of a successful opposition is not the same as success. What to do with the energy crisis, with the problem of illegal immigration, with the Afghan shameful epic and with the same Kovid? These problems in the minds of many voters are associated with Boris and Biden. And the prevailing impression is that they [ie Johnson and Biden] don’t know what they are doing”.

No, Freddie Gray has no poll results in this regard. So his assessment of the state of mind of the American and British public can be considered purely subjective. But in this case, too, she is a direct reason to be wary. Therefore, when those who do not know what they are doing Biden, “that guy over there” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Boris / Borey Johnson think “for three” a pact called AUKUS (Australia + United Kingdom + United States), in order to to contain China in Asia, it really means nothing more than the birth of a “new world order”.

James Forsyth, the editor of the political department of The Spectator, writes about this quite rightly and in a timely manner, noting that a short flirtation with Xi Qing Ping during his visit to the UK in 2015 was only a temporary deviation. And now, six years later, Britain has finally decided on its foreign policy strategy for the next thirty years. Strongly tied with the United States to defend Australia against China. And as to whether or not the American-British “parents” of this pact are aware of what they are actually doing, J. Fraser cites the opinion of a certain “British source”: political winds are blowing”.

The anonymous source seems to be a lover of wordplay and an undoubted wit, if you recall Johnson’s promise (humorously, of course) to call himself Boreas, that is, “The Wind.” But in fact, we are talking about a long-term and extremely ambitious project, which could be labeled as “British Empire 2.0”.

It is difficult to get rid of the impression that the United States, which in the post-Soviet era tried to establish its absolute monopoly on global governance alone, literally “slept through” the revival of a powerful (in the military sense) competitor in the person of Russia and the birth of an equally powerful (primarily economically) competitor represented by China, decided to stake on the Anglo-Saxon alliance. And taking into account the fact that the United Kingdom is also the formal leader of Commonwealth (which includes all the English-speaking states of the world), a very interesting picture is obtained.

In part, these are the outlines of the geopolitical alignment that George Orwell described in his novel 1984. But, at the same time, this anti-Chinese pact refers to an earlier prophecy on this topic – to the “Brief Story about the Antichrist”, attached to “Three Conversations” by Vl.S. Solovyov (1900). It is not harmful to re-read. Especially for us – the Russians. After all, J. Forsyth specifically emphasizes that “this pact does not depend on personal chemistry between leaders” and that “defense and technological cooperation between these three countries will continue regardless of how well the residents of the White House, Downing Street and Loggia do it”. For us, this new geopolitical reality is a challenge. But also – a chance.

Leonid Polyakov, Political Analytics


comments powered by HyperComments