Biden's weak legitimacy shakes the solidity of American foreign policy
The meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Geneva is not without reason considered a landmark. For the first time in several years of almost direct war, the leaders of the two countries met in person to discuss a lot of accumulated critical issues, both international and bilateral. It is considered to have been successful, as it managed to reverse the escalation of the confrontation, clearly leading to a third world war:
"Judging by the speed with which events have started to unfold in Ukraine (after Vladimir Zelensky's refusal to visit the United States) and in Belarus (after the visit of Nikolay Patrushev) in the last two weeks, a certain prototype of a Big Deal is still visible.
As for ‘Nord Stream-2’, which was 90% completed by the time of J. Biden's arrival in the White House, and for Ukraine and Belarus, 90% of which are the territory of historical Russia, he has no counterarguments, since the game is clear here. Accordingly, he has no reason to rest in vain. The fact that A. Blinken is trying to flare things up, this is his function, it is derived and is not a system-forming one for J. Biden."
At the same time, analysis shows that America continues to "follow its course", ignoring the world around it, except that local elite clans that have reached its main helm seriously differ in tactical approaches to solving the problem.
The Secretary of State is "playing for the hawks" who are trying to implement the "Interim Strategic Guidance on US National Security" published in April 2021 literally. It openly postulates a simple and clear plan, outwardly aimed at restoring the all-planetary hegemony of the United States with resolutely tough measures that do not exclude the "metered use of force".
Not because of some special internal aggressiveness of America, it's just that the United States has no other way to fully legitimise an internal coup d'etat, except to achieve "discipline" in the ranks of subordinates, who are then promised paradise within the framework of the "League of Democracies".
Where the "scythe finds a stone", the "collective of unknown fathers" that actually rules America pushes aside the “quarrelsome fellows" and listens to the “moderates" who promise to achieve those goals, but easier, cheaper and without a world war, through the integration of Russia into the"American post-industrial world".
However, the problem is compounded by the fact that the American state management system has lost its hierarchical integrity. In fact, a group of private individuals, with some assistance from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, hired retired special forces from a number of Latin American countries for rough work - overthrowing and killing the President of Haiti.
Although these "investors" - Walter Veintemilla and Antonio Intriago - are now carefully painted as an "exception to the rule", in reality they represent only the tip of the iceberg of a fierce internal squabble within the Democratic Party over who will govern the territory of Haiti after it becomes the 52nd US state.
Because the 51st US Senate has just voted to reorganise the Federal District of Columbia. Both of these steps are strategically aimed at consolidating the stability of the majority of votes of the "Democrats" in the American parliament, which guarantees the transformation of the country into an undivided patrimony of the Democratic Party, completely levelling the entire electoral mechanism of America.
It would be very naive to believe that in such a strategically important direction someone would allow a "couple of private individuals" to frolic solely on their own initiative and make an American citizen, Christian Emmanuel Sanon, the new president of Haiti.
The second example is the events developing in and around Cuba. Suddenly, it turned out that "some private individuals" also initiated large-scale civil protests there. This is very strange, considering that the Pentagon seriously discussed the prospect of sending American troops "to protect democracy in Cuba”.
Thus, the question arises – so who governs America and determines its foreign policy? It is necessary to negotiate specifically with whom? And what is the level of contractual capacity of these persons?
Because otherwise, any Big Deal - talks about which began after the meeting in Geneva, after Kerry's visit to Moscow, and following the results of other events, such as Biden's meeting with Merkel, at which Washington seemed to convince Berlin that Nord Stream 2 was bad, but took note that Germany was not going to listen to America on this issue - loses its meaning.
And what is the main reason for the confusion and vacillation in American foreign policy? This is Joe Biden's weak legitimacy. As soon as the figures of electoral fraud in Arizona are announced, and if at least Pennsylvania is added to them, the question of who is the real president of America will cease to be purely theoretical. And what consequences the presence of two presidents in the United States can lead to is anyone's guess.