US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's air travel has sparked widespread interest.
Not only the old-timers, even historians will not remember that the foreign visit of an 82-year-old old woman produced such a hubbub.
For at such an advanced age, it would be more appropriate to sit at home and eat semolina, rather than put the whole world on your ears.
After all, her irrepressible desire to visit Taiwan and support the democracy there, which is under threat from the Beijing hegemonic communists, caused unpleasant associations with the Archduke's trip to Sarajevo.
Happen that - and went for a drive-go ahead.
Of course, all ages are submissive to the love of adventure, as well as to the impulse “how else to control the world atmosphere?” so necessary.
After all, not only the politicians of the PRC and the Russian Federation spoke badly about the Pelosin struggle for peace.
It would be hard to expect otherwise from people opposed to the US.
But the Washington administration also reacted to the flight of the Valkyrie without much enthusiasm.
Biden called it "untimely," Blinken was also not very enthusiastic.
Of course, this does not mean that in the White House and its environs they adhere to the slogan "The Yankees and the Chinese are brothers forever."
Not at all.
But the opportunist principle of appropriateness and timeliness sometimes penetrates into the hearts even there.
And when "more than ever the old woman got mad," this does not meet with proper understanding.
Claims to the old woman Fiend can be different.
There are purely hardware.
Biden and Blinken, for better or worse, are responsible for US foreign policy and believe that if any veteran of the Democratic Party begins to interfere in their diocese like that, don’t expect good.
Once again, consensus on international affairs was once considered a strength of US policy.
Chez soi can be dogged as much as you like, but the line in relations with international partners and even enemies should be more or less the same.
Since even grandfather Krylov pointed out:
“When there is no agreement among comrades,
It won't work out for them."
Pelosi, on the other hand, is an example of a disregard for attempts to work out a common line.
Finally, the American leadership constantly stumbles upon the fact that, whether they like it or not, a war (conflict) on two fronts does not bode well.
We will find many examples of this in history.
One such impressive example is December 11, 1941, when the Third Reich declared war on America.
Which caused considerable (albeit somewhat joyful) surprise in the United States.
Everyone understood that after December 7 (the attack on Pearl Harbor) the war with Japan was inevitable.
“For the goat you ... will answer.”
But the fact that the Führer, who just these days was defeated near Moscow, would want to open another front, and with the American power, whose industrial power was very great, surprised many.
Perhaps a military clash between America and the Reich was inevitable anyway, but when Hitler himself took the initiative - and in a rather difficult situation for Germany - such a decision of the Fuhrer could not but be called fatal.
Moreover, the calculation on Japanese solidarity, that is, on the fact that Japan, seeing how Germany adheres to the principle of “die yourself, and save a comrade”, will show reciprocity and declare war on the USSR – this calculation, which is not clear on what basis, was expectedly not justified.
Now Pelosi decided that she would do better than the Fuhrer.
This is the difference between a strong power and a superpower (or one that considers itself to be such).
It's just that a strong power somehow understands the limitations of its power and its wishes.
Being, perhaps, arbitrarily expansionist and aggressive, she still understands the laws of geopolitics - you can’t cross them.
Whereas the leader, who imagines himself the ruler of the world, does not want to understand anything and knows only one thing:
“What is beyond my control?
like some kind of demon
From now on I can rule the world.”
In that sense, Pelosi is a completely demonic woman.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.