"It's not us"

Looking at Washington's latest statements about the events around Ukraine, you involuntarily catch yourself thinking: the main meaning of these statements boils down to the phrase "It's not us."

So it was after the attack on the Crimean bridge, and after the explosions at the Nord Stream, and most recently, when air and surface drones that appeared from somewhere in the Kyiv regime attacked Sevastopol.

And how the Americans denied the topic of the "dirty bomb" of the Kyiv regime, will go down in the history of crisis communications on the world stage.

The only case that has become some exception to the rule is the failure of the grain deal, when Washington frankly showed everyone that the keys to it are in the United States, limiting the admission of Russian food and fertilizers to world markets.

But what is interesting: as soon as the situation reached the point of explosion, here, too, the Americans began to distance themselves from the situation.

This, of course, is somewhat strange behavior for a state claiming the status of "the only superpower."

Is it possible that in Washington, even taking into account the difficult "moral and psychological" state of the US top leadership, they do not understand that, trying to disown the most significant events in the world, they actually themselves admit that there are some forces in the world capable of carrying out military and forceful actions, changing the geo-economic picture of entire regions and the world, without asking the United States.

What is the "only superpower" here ...

Of course they understand.

And they act on the basis of quite reasonable logic, consisting of three points.

The first.

The United States really cannot control all global processes, and in particular the actions of "ronin-siloviki" in the hot spots of the world.

Even if they have American passports.

The United States is also unable to control the actions of the “deep Great Britain”, which, in the conditions of the deepest crisis in Britain as a state, is becoming more and more aggressive.

In general, the emergence as a result of the collapse of the monopolar world of a large number of "free radicals" from among the security forces of different countries, some of whom have already manifested themselves in Ukraine, can become one of the main challenges for the United States in building a "world of rules".

For these people, sincerely considering themselves Judge Dredds, make the rules themselves.

Second.

The United States, constantly talking about the preservation of the old world order, actually relied on its collapse, since the world will fall apart far from America.

But Americans don't want to be the breakers - they want to be the ones to create something new, securing a place at the top, maybe a little less comfortable than before.

The exception is relations with China, where Washington does not hesitate to play the first number.

And it is clear why: China is too powerful a geo-economic threat, without which it will not be possible to build a “world of rules” in the economy.

Otherwise, everything is aimed at ensuring that the United States is perceived as a force that is still capable of constructive interaction, although the whole world believes in this with increasing difficulty.

Third.

For America, the internal situation is becoming increasingly important - and not only for the November elections.

Washington understands this, trying to shield the average American from bad news.

Yes, of course, for an American, domestic news is the main thing, but he does not want to constantly hear that his country, which he sincerely considers great, has again become involved in some kind of conflict on the side of a dubious ally.

And the dubiousness of the allies in Kyiv is too obvious.

Yes, and the Republicans are on the alert, constantly reminding that Ukraine is a toxic “suitcase without a handle”, moreover, the personal suitcase of the Biden family.

Therefore, Washington chose such an ambiguous distancing from the media highlights of events in Ukraine.

And the provision of military and economic assistance is less and less public, "behind the scenes."

But the "ears" of American security officials, staff officers, intelligence officers and technical advisers are too visible behind the palisade of figures of the Polish, Ukrainian and Romanian military, as well as British saboteurs.

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