Speaking of birds

Joe Biden briefly became a social media star, beating out Snoopy Dogg and Kanye West.

The reason is simple: during a speech by the President of the United States in Iowa, a bird shit on the leader of the free world.

It happened precisely at the moment when Biden once again explained to the audience to listen to him (yes, yes, there are such eccentrics!), that Vladimir Putin is to blame for inflation, growing by leaps and bounds.

"Your family budget, your ability to fill the tank of your car - none of this should depend on whether the dictator declares war and commits genocide half the world from here," Sleepy Joe convinced the audience when a dove flying over him did its black (on actually white) thing.

The attention of the audience was riveted on the stain on the president's suit, but his administration was visibly tense: the word "genocide" in the mouth of the most powerful man in the West obliges America too much.

Therefore, a White House spokesman quickly went on television to clarify that the president's words do not reflect a change in US policy towards Ukraine.

But the word, as you know, is not a sparrow (again, these birds!).

What was said in Iowa reverberated in Washington.

And when Biden returned from the provincial wilderness, journalists pounced on him with questions about the "genocide" in Ukraine.

Sleepy Joe did not deceive the hopes of the journalistic fraternity.

“Yes, I called it genocide, because it is becoming more and more obvious that Putin is simply trying to destroy even the very idea of ​​being able to be Ukrainian,” he explained.

However, he made a reservation: the legal definition of "genocide" differs from his personal impressions of what is happening in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, the President is not going to revise his initial assessment.

“We plan to learn more and more about the destruction, and we will let lawyers decide internationally whether this qualifies as genocide under international law,” Biden added.

“But it definitely seems that way to me.”

In a recent column, I wrote about how the US attitude towards international legal institutions, including the International Criminal Court, has changed dramatically since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine.

Of course, one cannot count on such bodies to be objective and impartial to all parties to the conflict - take, for example, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of bad memory.

And yet, there is some sense in attracting reputable lawyers from neutral countries.

For example, the activities of the Tagliavini commission to investigate the causes of the conflict in South Ossetia played a crucial role in removing Russia from responsibility for the war with Georgia, which the US and the EU tried to lay on it.

And if some independent lawyers, whom Biden is talking about, take up the investigation of evidence of "genocide" in Ukraine, then they will not be able to get past the sensational report of the British BBC channel that the serial number of the Tochka-U missile that hit the station in Kramatorsk and that killed 50 people, coincides with the numbers of missiles from the arsenal of the 13th missile brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

This, unlike the words that come out of the mouth of the aged president of the United States, is evidence, and irrefutable evidence.

And this evidence proves that the civilian population of Ukraine is really being destroyed, but not by the Russian army, but by the Kiev junta, distraught with blood and drugs.

However, regardless of what the aged American leader says, the United States continues to pursue in Ukraine a policy developed by neo-conservative "think tanks" and approved by the radical wing of the Democratic Party.

What kind of policy this is is eloquently evidenced by a recent interview with Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan on NBC News.

Sullivan said the United States "will do everything possible" to help "democratic" Ukraine.

And they themselves will continue to supply weapons to Ukraine, and "organize and coordinate" such supplies from many other countries, so that Kyiv receives "everything necessary" to fight the "aggressor".

These deliveries, Sullivan assured him, did not stop for a single day.

It is worth noting that the journalist who interviewed the national security adviser asked him if America would give Ukraine not only defensive, but also offensive weapons so that it “won this war.”

To which Sullivan, with an impenetrable face, replied that the United States gives Ukraine everything "to make it successful."

From which we can conclude: the Biden administration, despite the loud rhetoric, does not for a moment admit the possibility of a real “victory” of Ukraine over Russia, but is ready to do everything so that the conflict exhausts both sides as much as possible.

Officially, of course, Sullivan voiced somewhat different goals.

According to the national security adviser, Washington's policy towards Russia and Ukraine is to get "an independent and free Ukraine", "an isolated and weakened Russia" and "a more united and stronger West."

It is for this that Ukraine is being assisted - both in the form of arms supplies and in the form of sanctions against Russia.

And the Ukrainians in return will help America achieve these goals.

Sullivan is disingenuous: fueling the Kiev regime with weapons does nothing to help build an “independent and free” Ukraine.

It only leads to additional casualties on both sides of the conflict, but this is exactly what Washington needs.

The United States is really ready to fight with Russia “until the last Ukrainian” – it’s not a pity, but if it is possible to squeeze Russia out of the promising European gas market on the sly, it will be a royal gift for the White House.

In this sense, the “more united and stronger West” that Sullivan refers to should be deciphered as “the restoration of American hegemony, shaken during the years of the Trump presidency.”

But just with this there are problems.

If Washington's traditional allies in Europe, primarily Germany, even accepted the return of the "master" with some relief and again fell under the American boot with masochistic pleasure, then the position of, for example, France cannot but disturb the White House.

Emmanuel Macron, who has the second round of the presidential election on his nose, suddenly became extremely picky in terms: he dared to disagree with Biden, saying that he did not consider Russia's actions in Ukraine to be genocide, and - oh horror!

- called the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples "fraternal".

There is nothing to say about Hungary and its leader Viktor Orban, who opposes the embargo on Russian energy supplies - this is a source of constant headache for the Biden administration.

Washington's biggest nightmare is that the US is failing to "isolate" Russia on a global scale.

Recently, the influential magazine The Economist published a map showing which countries share the position of the US and NATO towards Russia, which remain neutral, and which support Russia in its actions in Ukraine.

The results were unexpected even for the publication itself: it turned out that, although more than 100 states, including most of North America and Europe, fell into the group of pro-Western, “anti-Russian” countries, only 36% of the world's population lives in them.

The Economist classified only 28 states as pro-Russian (including China, Syria, Pakistan, Eritrea, Venezuela and Myanmar).

These countries account for more than 1/3 of the world's population.

Another 32 countries with a total population of about 1/3 of humanity were classified as neutral - India and Brazil were among them.

Thus, two-thirds of the world's population either support Russia or remain neutral, the magazine concludes.

In fact, it's even worse (for the West).

Firstly, the fact that the government of a country supports the “global bosses” and opposes Russia does not mean that the people of this country share anti-Russian sentiments.

This definitely applies to the Balkans (for example, Serbia is classified as “neutral” on The Economist’s map, although there is no more Russophile people on Earth than the Serbs) and Latin America.

More importantly, India, which British journalists also wrote down as "neutral countries", in reality supports Russia - just admitting this is unbearable for the United States.

For a long time, Washington tried to put pressure on Delhi and win India over to its side, but to no avail.

Negotiations between Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi ended in the same poof as the conversation between Biden and Xi Jinping that preceded them.

On the eve of the conversation between the American president and the Indian leader, the State Department tried to put pressure on Delhi, "warning" that the consequences of strategic cooperation with Moscow could backfire on India.

But India, as even Western journalists were forced to admit, “stands its ground firmly despite growing pressure from the United States.”

Official Delhi refused to criticize Russia for its actions in Ukraine, limiting itself to general words about the need to respect the sovereignty of each nation.

The only result of the conversation between Biden and Modi was the US-India negotiations in the 2 + 2 format,

for which Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Defense Minister Rajnath Singh flew to Washington.

The main goal of these negotiations was to force Delhi to abandon its neutrality towards Moscow - and it is precisely in achieving this goal that the Americans did not succeed.

Having failed with India, the US tried to catch up in Pakistan.

There they succeeded in carrying out a coup d'état - the partly bought, partly intimidated opposition in the country's parliament passed a vote of no confidence in Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Imran Khan became objectionable to Washington - too independent, too focused on multipolar cooperation, including with Russia (on February 24, Khan flew to Moscow and met with Vladimir Putin).

After the removal of Khan, Shahbaz Sharif, who is considered a pro-British politician, came to power in Pakistan.

But it is unlikely that Washington can consider what happened a clear victory - Imran Khan is not going to give up and will seek early elections, so nothing has been finally decided in Pakistan yet.

If we continue the "bird theme",

While the United States is making a truly titanic effort to weaken and isolate Russia on the international stage, the “chicken count” shows a very different picture.

The more confidently Russia acts on the territory of Ukraine, the more countries get out of Washington's control.

And the final victory of Russian weapons over Kiev Nazism will mean the collapse of US hegemony, as Sergei Lavrov predicted.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.