Why the Russian ambassador to the United States does not return to Washington. The savvy backstage of international politics.

The reason for Antonov’s call to Moscow is known, the reason for the delay in returning to the embassy is the same — "the deepest crisis in relations with the United States." If Anatoly Antonov stayed a little late with his departure from the American capital, he could personally convey to Vladimir Putin an invitation to a virtual climate summit. The question for what purpose Biden invited the Russian president to this summit after a well-known interview remains unanswered, as well as the invitation itself.

"Yankees" connections are not afraid

The rift in relations with the United States, the undisguised outburst of the White House owner towards Russia and Vladimir Putin, as well as the aggressive vocabulary of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg with a cold look at the exhibits of the Madame Tussauds Museum, as if "froze the climate" in advance before the upcoming meeting on warming the global atmosphere. This was reported by the correspondent of The Moscow Post.

There is a choice to make. On the one hand, it would be necessary to confirm concern about the state of the climate and its warming, while uncontrollable and completely incomprehensible. On the other hand, it is necessary to respond to the cold-blooded turn of the United States from the practice of normal business management towards tension in relations along all lines.

A conversation with the leaders of France and Germany about the situation in Ukraine came by the way. For seven years, Washington and the Allies stood as if in half a turn to Russia, waiting for the "third capture of Sevastopol." Victoria Nuland, who once learned Russian for six months on a Soviet fishing trawler, continued the "U-turn" with cookies in her basket. The muttering of the "sleepy Joe" in an interview with the character "especially close" to the Clinton family finally completed the maneuver. Washington defiantly turned its back on Russia. What follows from this, what can be done, is it necessary to prepare for "cooling," threatening "nuclear winter"?

Firstly, the solution was offered — to talk face to face, albeit via video link. The proposal was not accepted, you see, "there are other leaders in line."

Secondly, modern technology provides a rare opportunity to talk "with all the leaders" at once that Biden benefits. The first hundred days in the office should be crowned, if not with another foreign invasion, then with something "international."

Thirdly, the proposal of Russia and China to hold a meeting of permanent members of the UN Security Council looks heavy and alien, the climate may become a suitable replacement. This is the demand of associates from the league "golden billion."

"Oxide"–show

Everything that happens resembles an amateur theater with a dressing room in the West Wing of the White House, where the director’s apparatus was sheltered. The theater on Pennsylvania Avenu1600 occupies a central position in the North Atlantic, has fans and branches in a number of allied states, and also tours around the world tirelessly, the good of money and the desire to "give performances on the road" is still enough. The premiere, opening the 2021 season, should be the Climate Summit on the main stage in Washington.

An ad on the White House website said: "By the time of the Summit, the United States will announce an ambitious emissions target for the period up to 2030 as its new National Contribution under the Paris Agreement. In his invitation, the President called on the leaders to use the Summit as an opportunity to set out how their countries will also contribute to strengthening climate ambitions. "

Everything would be fine, but "climate ambitions" have not yet completely taken root in Waschignton itself. Moreover, the attitude of Democrats and Republicans to the problem of global warming fluctuated with a more noticeable amplitude than the readings of thermometers of meteorologists. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in December 1997. Washington signed it, but did not ratify it. In November 2000, under Bill Clinton, the US delegation left the negotiations in The Hague for "economic reasons."

This move was made before George W. Bush became president. In July 2001, Bush promised that in the field of climate change, his administration’s policies would encourage technological innovation, market benefits, and global participation.

In 2007, the book "Inconvenient Truth" was published by former Vice President Albert Gore. The problem of global warming and carbon emissions was described, the film of the same name brought the Democratic author the Nobel Prize, though only half. The second half was received by the Intergovernmental Commission on Climate Change (IPCC).

In 2009, Donald Trump not only personally signed a paid ad in the New York Times in support of climate change legislation, but attracted representatives of the business community to this action.

Next, true only in 2013, Barack Obama conveyed to Georgetown University students the seriousness of global warming and announced "a new national climate action plan."

In December 2015, already speaking in Paris, Obama said that over the seven years of his administration, the United States has become a leader in the fight against climate change through the use of solar energy, wind generators, and restrictions on industrial emissions.

As you know, the main goal of the agreement concluded in Paris was to keep the increase in the average global temperature within 1.5-2 degrees Celsius in relation to the indicators of the pre-industrial era.

Soon, after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the "republican composition" of the troupe of the Washington theater defiantly refused to play the play "Paris Agreements 2015," calling the idea itself "mythical."

Thus, the "climate agenda" has become the subject of merciless inter-party competition. According to the American Institute of World Resources, the Trump administration "abandoned global cooperation in the field of climate action and four years of movement have widened the gap that the United States must overcome in order to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement."

How the hosts of the White House will relate to climate problems in the future, this will show the future.

"Our people" — we count

Washington’s strategy for cooperation on other "global issues" includes Russia and China. Priority security cases with conflicts and hotspots take a different approach. So, for example, at the regional level with Russia and China, Washington (with allies) prefers to conduct one-on-one affairs. In Europe, the tested coalition-Russia scheme is used, the coalition includes Ukraine, maybe Georgia. In Asia, the coalition includes not only Japan and Australia. India is also intensely invited to take part, in line South Korea.

As in "Star Wars" by George Lucas Jr.: "Empire" (coalition) decides to spread the "distant and stellar needs of democracies" in time and space, separating them from the grounded priorities of "autocracies." If the rules are adopted without amendments to the "symmetry" of interests, you will have to play on the field of "democracies" and not only according to the rules of "carbon dioxide emissions," but also according to the requirements of "universal human values, human rights."

The slogan "climate ambitions" is not the only one in the verbal arsenal of the Biden Theater, which intends to rely on the principle of "multilateral action" in foreign policy, as well as the authority of the UN, where Blinken calls for "building coalitions with like-minded states," read the allies. The UN, he said, should be "an effective and most ambitious organization." Biden also considers the UN a "central link" in solving global problems. He held an online meeting with permanent representatives of countries belonging to the UN Security Council.

Changes in Washington’s tone toward the UN are late. Take at least UN Security Council Resolution 2231 of July 20, 2015, which approved the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan on Iran’s nuclear program. The JCPOA was signed in 2015 by Iran and five permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as Germany. The agreement lifted sanctions on Tehran. Under Trump, the United States withdrew from the deal in May 2018. Biden extended the sanctions regime for a year, and Tehran warned: if the sanctions are not lifted, there will be a review of the obligations agreed under the deal.

In the meantime, there is talk of resuscitation of the IWDP, the foreign ministers of Iran and China, Mohammad Javad Zarif and Wang Yi signed a comprehensive cooperation agreement. The document is designed for 25 years and consists of political, strategic and economic components. Iran believes that full cooperation with Beijing will guarantee its national interests and sustainable development. It cannot be ruled out that Iran is already "lost" to the West, primarily to the European Union.

But for China, which "does not share values," confrontation scenarios have been prepared with the participation of Taiwan, Japan, and plans for provocations in the South China Sea, around the Senkaku Islands. True, a reservation was made. The economic stakes are high, and the response can be lightning fast and tangible.

The scenario of a "combined" confrontation with Russia — one of two "autocracies" — is already playing out. The rules are old, but stricter, they can be revised during the play. The scenario is hastily added by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: we will act when and how we consider it necessary! The expression "cod eyes" is related to his fish mining intern on the Soviet trawler, Victoria.