Vladimir Zelensky's visit to Washington was discussed in various tones: from almost hysterical enthusiasm for the leader "defying totalitarian Muscovy" to skeptical comments about the discrepancy between the appetites of the Kyiv ruler and his real successes.

The question was clearly raised, how big is the real, and not the propaganda potential of "anti-Russia".

But the main result of the visit was an accentuated demonstration of how the modern radical globalist Washington thinks of the post-global world.

Washington's "world of rules" turned out to be just unipolar colonialism.

Despite the magnificent reception, the visit of the leader of the Kyiv regime was demonstratively arranged as a visit of the leader of a dependent state dependent on the United States.

This is no coincidence.

Americans, of course, are not great connoisseurs of protocol, but they understand PR symbolism very well.

No, it was a conscious decision: to bring the formal leader of what was once one of the largest and most industrialized states in Europe, keeping his entire visit completely under control, determining his every step and publicly demonstrating his lack of independence.

Little is new in this model.

The United States has consistently promoted the idea of ​​the fundamental obsolescence of the principles of state sovereignty and the state in principle.

They never concealed the fact that in the world of victorious US-centric globalization, there should have been only one state sovereignty - American.

Of course, there were individual outcasts who believed that American sovereignty should also be dissolved in a post-state order, but their voices have not been heard for a long time.

And even those in the American elite who are reluctant to accept a multipolar world or its surrogates firmly believe that all extradimensional systems, such as the information society, finance, investment flows, and international logistics corridors, can be exclusively under the control of the United States.

The rules of the "world of rules" are simple, if not primitive: no matter how democratic a leader you are, no matter how you treat your political opponents.

It is less and less important how corrupt the regime is, although here it seems that some decorum is still observed, and stealing is allowed only under the supervision of the ruling clan in the USA.

If the clan changes, then the attitude towards theft also changes, which, it seems, the Kyiv regime will soon be able to see.

It doesn't even matter how much of your country's territory you actually control.

It does not matter how much the regime reflects the interests of its country, cares about its welfare and future.

What matters is your willingness to act in accordance with instructions from Washington.

The grains of Zelensky's future tragedy, almost drawn during his visit to Washington, is that he seriously believed in his independence and status.

But if earlier the spaces losing their sovereignty were supposed to be managed by “managers” who retain at least the appearance of respectability, and the spaces themselves were supposed to work as a marketing showcase to attract new adherents to the “globalization pyramid”, now temporary workers and holograms of leaders begin to manage dependent countries, and themselves " dependent spaces” no one is going to pull up to a civilized way of life.

You have to be a very naive person who does not understand the essence of the American political method, so as not to “try on” the leaders of much more respectable countries in the place of Zelensky: Scholz, for example, Macron, Rishi Sunak, Fumio Kishida ... Yes, almost anyone.

You can dig deeper: imagine any other country of the “world of rules” in place of Ukraine and think how much it can repeat the experience of the former Ukrainian SSR.

And get a frightening answer: from the point of view of Washington’s interests, there is nothing in the experience of chaos in Ukraine that could not happen in any other pro-American country in Europe, Asia or Latin America – from tearing apart the remnants of the economy created by previous generations to religious persecution.

It should be noted that many formerly prosperous European countries have made great progress on the “Ukrainian path”.

Such is it - the path to the "wild field" of the "world of rules", the fate of which is prepared for most of the world.

And understanding this is probably the most important outcome of 2022.

Washington does not feel sorry for anyone.

But Russia should also draw conclusions: our policy of recent years was based on the natural premise that any political elite will strive for sovereignty, expanding the “sovereignty space” for its state.

This is quite natural, this is the logic of the development of normal capitalism, a rationalistic phenomenon to the point of cynicism.

The problem is that there is practically no “normal” capitalism left by the 2020s, and local oligarchic capitalisms, of which the Ukrainian economy was a classic example, were considered by the elites as “trophies”.

And therefore, "post-Soviet capitalism" was replaced not by the idea of ​​a modernization breakthrough, but by the desire to become someone's colony.

Post-industrial capitalism was replaced by colonial capitalism, the parasitic essence of which not only ceased to hide behind the fig leaves of "institutions" and "civil society", but became the basis of existence.

Real sovereignty, even within a coalition, is responsibility.

Before your country, your people, your future.

But are there many "national" elites in the world capable of bearing this responsibility?

The lesson of 2022 is not only that we are opposed by colonial capitalism, for which the satanism of vassals is normal.

Although that in itself is scary.

The lesson is that in today's world, too many elites consider the integration of their countries into the new American empire, their transformation from states into "territories" as normal and even desirable.

So there will be very few sovereign countries in the post-global world.

And the rest...

What to do with the rest will be the main question for the responsible politicians of the future.

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