The Western media was predictably agitated by the visit of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the Russian Far East. It is a pleasure to read the English-language articles on Kim's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin: the fear of the new regional security architecture emerging in the east of the Eurasian continent is so clearly evident in them.
Of course, it was not without cliches familiar to the Western reader. The Washington Post's Seoul correspondent Min Joo-kim describes the meeting as follows: "This week, a pair of international outcasts staged a show of support and camaraderie, in a clear rebuff to US efforts to isolate Putin for his invasion of Ukraine and Kim for his pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles."
It is unlikely that the author of the article has forgotten that the Russian leader spoke online to the participants of the BRICS summit in Johannesburg three weeks ago to friendly applause, and it is unlikely that she is not aware that about 3,5 billion people live in the BRICS countries. A good "outcast"! She repeats the words that have set her teeth on edge simply because they would like to see Putin as an "outcast" in Washington. But, as they say, desires do not always coincide with reality.
The authors of the material published on the NBC news website are even more frank: "The rapprochement between the two adversaries of the United States comes as their leaders face deepening diplomatic isolation: Putin because of the 18-month war in Ukraine, and Kim because of the ongoing development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs in violation of international sanctions."
The accents are clear: both Russia and the DPRK are opponents of the United States. It is in this vein that all major Western media will analyze Kim Jong-un's visit. They consider Kim's negotiations with Putin solely from the point of view of strengthening the military potential of Russia and the DPRK.
"Moscow's decision to hold a Kim-Putin summit at the [Vostochny] cosmodrome suggests that Kim is seeking Russian technical assistance to develop military reconnaissance satellites, which he says are critical to increasing the threat of his nuclear-armed missiles," the CBS website suggests. North Korea, the authors of the material remind, in recent months several attempts to put its first military satellite into orbit have failed several times - perhaps after Kim's visit, the situation will change.
The Washington Post also does not rule out that North Korea may benefit from rapprochement with Russia: "the assumption that Pyongyang could receive from Moscow more modern weapons technology or more active economic cooperation, for example, an agreement that Russia will be able to host more North Korean workers."
Most worried about the possible consequences of the meeting between the Russian and North Korean leaders, the Financial Times, which published an article "A Sinister Marriage of Convenience between Putin and Kim." This opus states that "Russia can offer Pyongyang much-needed grain and oil. But the greatest interest to Kim is probably technical assistance in the development of weapons, missiles, nuclear submarines and military spy satellites. The Kremlin, of course, will fear that the capricious North Korean leader will get his hands on too many dangerous toys. But Kim has every opportunity to make a tough deal."
To be honest, this publication used to produce better analytics. What "possibilities" of Kim the newspaper has in mind has remained a mystery - and not surprising, because, apart from its own fantasies, the FT editors have no arguments.
But the authors of the editorial - like most Western journalists - proceed from the fact that Russia desperately needs North Korean ammunition and is ready to pay for them with Pyongyang with anything. "According to military analysts, North Korea can provide Russia with enough old Soviet-style ammunition to support the war in Ukraine for several months, which will give Russia enough time to increase the production of additional weapons," Breitbart News, for example, reports.
Curiously, in fact, at the same time, The New York Times publishes sensational material, where, citing numerous sources, it proves: despite Western sanctions, Russia has managed to increase the production of missiles - there are now more of them produced than before the start of the NWO, and ammunition - Russian arms factories produce more of them than in the United States and Europe (according to the estimates of the Estonian Ministry of Defense, which the newspaper cites, the current volume of ammunition production in Russia is seven times higher than the western one).
However, this article was clearly not read by everyone. For example, it was definitely missed by State Department official James O'Brien, who "said with a grin that Russia" is scratching the bottom of the barrel in search of help "from North Korea, because "it is difficult for it to maintain its armed forces."
Somewhere we have already heard this: "Russia has two or three days of missiles left", "Calibers have already run out", "Iskanders" are running out ... Oh, yes - last year the talking heads of the Kyiv regime tirelessly repeated this. Apparently, the Ukrainian tendency to create comfortable illusions turned out to be contagious, and the immunity of State Department officials was rather weak.
To the gallery page
Officially, Washington expressed concern about the possible transfer of weapons from North Korea to Russia, stressing that this would be a violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions. "We will monitor what is happening and, if necessary, we will not hesitate to take action to bring those responsible to justice," the US State Department said on Tuesday.
But these menacing words are nothing more than puffing out your cheeks. Even the Financial Times, which has already been quoted, admits that although the United States and its allies will be "even more concerned" about the growing cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang, "they have no tools to influence Russia or North Korea, except for strengthening the already large-scale sanctions." And the effectiveness of these weapons, it seems, has already been exhausted - the West used them too much and uncontrollably.
In this situation, Washington has no choice but to try to intensify efforts to reach an understanding with Beijing: American strategists hope that taking joint measures to contain the "increasingly wayward" Moscow and Pyongyang may be of mutual interest to the United States and China. But this is nothing more than an illusion. In Beijing, they remember the words of Henry Kissinger: "It may be dangerous to be an enemy of America, but to be a friend of America is fatal." And the open preparation of the United States for a military conflict with China over Taiwan makes any projects for the restoration of Chimerica meaningless.
All the talk about Beijing's possible "friendship" with Washington against Russia and North Korea is designed to mask the US fear of a new regional security architecture, the basis of which is the triad of nuclear powers - Russia, China and North Korea. And no theater of illusions, depicting the West as an all-powerful hegemon, and not those who want to obey it as outcasts, will be able to change this new reality.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.