Behind the scenes of the G20. Western elite treaties
Behind the scenes of the G20. Western elite treaties

Something serious and very important, which is not fully understood, happened on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka, if after it things began to happen that were openly calculated not even to undermine, but to explode political stability in the leading countries of the global triangle "- Russia, USA and China. Everywhere at the same time.

The general logic of events and the process that they move, on the whole, seems to be like this. The summit ended and its participants left - some, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, immediately returned home to urgent business. And someone, like Donald Trump, made a detour along the way, creating another world sensation, clearly agreed upon in Osaka: a meeting for three at the 38th parallel with the leaders of the DPRK and South Korea Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae In …

And after all this, some became so agitated that they gave out an explosion of activity, almost headlong, pressing all imaginable and inconceivable levers at once and using all destructive "reserves", both internal and external.

Of course, it is impossible to prove anything here with documents. Evidence - under the appropriate stamps with different national and state affiliation. But judging by indirect indications, these "stamps" may be based on the fact that this "someone", who not only has access to them, but who is initially aware of what is happening due to the deepest involvement in the process itself, is categorically not satisfied.

To begin with, let us recall the plot of the "twenty". Of course, not the most dismal meeting and the final document "about nothing", namely the lobby, where the main events took place on the sidelines: Trump's bilateral talks with Putin and Jinping, as well as a trilateral meeting of Russian and Chinese leaders with Indian leader Narendra Modi.

Now we turn to what followed later, after the summit and negotiations between Trump and Kim and Moon in Panmunjom. First of all, on the evening of July 1, a "hybrid" strike was launched against China. The protesters besieging the center of Hong Kong (Xianggang), protesting against the long-held "stalled" bill on extraditing urban criminals "to the side", suddenly became more active and went to storm the building of the Legislative Council (parliament) of the metropolis.

Having occupied the building and desecrated the state symbols of the PRC, the provocateurs simply sat in it and very soon were thrown out of there by the police special forces. For several hours they did not bother to take any meaningful action, and this clearly indicates that the purpose of the seizure was precisely to provoke and fuel a further campaign of street defiance and destabilization.

Commenting on what is happening in Hong Kong the next day, on July 2, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang drew attention to the external factor of events, speaking out against foreign interference in the affairs of the region and the PRC. Two days later, on July 4, the source of this interference was also named, when the Chinese ambassador in London, Liu Xiaoming, expressed a strong protest to the British side, demanding a reassessment of his "erroneous statements and actions."

After that, the diplomat gathered a representative briefing, at which he outlined the situation around the Hong Kong parliament and the position of official Beijing. The British side "modestly" kept silent.

The next attack, moreover, coordinated, internal and external, was Russia. At the XXVIII International Financial Forum in St. Petersburg, the head of the Central Bank of Russia Elvira Nabiullina made a speech on July 4, which became a de facto manifesto of militant liberalism.

Having entered into a correspondence controversy with Vladimir Putin on the factors that hinder the development of the Russian economy, this “nestling bird” of the Higher School of Economics has agreed a lot on what. From the de facto prohibition of domestic investments, except for the use of pension funds without the knowledge of citizens, to the cessation of budget financing of "necessary enterprises" and the imposition of cannibalistic "social ratings" on citizens.

The liberals' offensive inside the country was reinforced by a scandalous external provocation in Tbilisi, where a journalist of the Rustavi 2 TV channel, closely associated with Saakashvili (who received the go-ahead from the Ukrainian authorities to participate in the parliamentary elections) on July 7, broadcast a blasphemous "speech" with obscene insults addressed to the President of Russia. It is clear that this provocation was put in the context of the recent Tbilisi riots, and Saakashvili did not miss the moment to, by commenting on the ugly episode, thus remind of himself already in Georgia.

The very next day, July 8, the anti-Russian bacchanalia with the participation of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the leadership of the SBU, the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC), the "maydanuts" in the Verkhovna Rada and the nationalist "community" of the Bandera "dobrobats" have already swept over Kiev.

The reason was the attempt of the Ukrainian TV channel NewsOne to hold a teleconference under the heading “We must talk” with the Moscow studio of the state TV channel “Russia-1”. Moreover, it is indicative that in a statement specially made on this occasion, the Ukrainian president tried to "grab" the idea of ​​dialogue with Moscow, switching it over not just to himself, but also putting under the control of all the Western leaders listed by him in turn.

In this multidimensional Ukrainian epic there is a lot of interesting things both from the pre-election point of view and regarding bilateral relations, but we are interested in its completely non-random “coincidence” with the general context of what is happening in the world.

In parallel, an unprecedented attack on Donald Trump began. On the same day, July 7, when Rustavi 2 shocked Georgia, the British elite made an even more resonant drain when the Daily Mail published a secret correspondence with the Foreign Office of British Ambassador to Washington Kim Darroc.

The ambassador of the former Great Britain insults the American president in expressions not much different from the vulgarity of Tbilisi against the Russian president. Opinions on this issue at the top of Foggy Albion were divided. The outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May, following the Foreign Ministry itself, supported the scandalous diplomat, and many members of her government, like Commerce Secretary Liam Fox, who was going to visit the United States, were outraged by his behavior, promising to apologize on the spot.

Trump himself, impartially speaking about the British afterwards, warned London that it was better to replace him, because the White House would no longer work with him. The owner of the Oval Office also waved his pen to May, congratulating the British on the fact that they would have another prime minister. And returning to his recent visit to the British capital, he scattered compliments in front of Elizabeth II, while keeping silent about the offense inflicted on him by one of the members of the royal family, Prince Harry.

Donald Trump did not say a word about the context of that visit either: he pretended not to understand that the publication in the Daily Mail, among other things, was also a signal to official Washington from the banks of the Thames that Julian Assange was to him in exchange for “good behavior ", Of course, will be given - the word of the monarch. But he will not find himself in information security from turning the "skeletons out of the closet". WikiLeaks is not politics itself, but only its instrument. And there can be as many as you like, in addition to the Daily Mail.

The "ninth wave" of the information attack on the White House was continued in the report released on July 8 by the very indicative "think tank" - the Center for Bipartisan Politics, which predicted a default in the US this fall.

It must be understood that the bipartisan, Democratic-Republican bunch of Donald Trump's main opponents in the upcoming elections, Joe Biden - Mitt Romney - makes the first move, blaming the incumbent head of the White House for the failure of the most successful part of his presidency - domestic economic policy.And he makes him responsible for the "unsuccessful" tax reform, which sharply limited revenue to the treasury.

Thus, if we compare everything that happened in the first decade after Osaka, one cannot fail to see a sharp exacerbation of the behind-the-scenes struggle both in the international arena as a whole and within the leading countries that form the global “geopolitical triangle”. And there is no such thing that all the contradictions splashed out on us become public property all at once, in one fell swoop, by accident. Inadvertently, it happened like this, it just coincided.

On the one hand, you can see with the naked eye that this is a scenario. In many ways, by the way, it is spontaneous, for it is not fully prepared, as indicated by the prevalence of scandalous situations. Apparently, there was simply no time for the drawing of respectable mise-en-scenes, and this means that the organizers were caught unawares and act in time trouble, leaving traces, moreover.

On the other hand, the level of those involved in this "game" - the British Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry, the head of the Central Bank of Russia, as well as those who are also not accidentally, but obviously after behind-the-scenes consultations, given their recent voyage to Europe, in his address to V. Putin "V. Zelensky, and from whom neither denials nor explanations followed even on the (non) conformity of the Normandy format proposed by the Ukrainian president, says that the customers of the chain of events should be looked for at the top of the Western elites.

It is quite obvious that D. Trump, who has become the target of the attack, is not among them, and it is also clear that his opponents from the world deep state are sitting in the "scenario" with ears. Who else? Let's pay attention to the following. Since a lot of things clearly converge in London - from organizing street riots in Hong Kong to provocations against Trump, and the American leader himself indirectly requested clarifications from Buckingham Palace without receiving them, the following most likely follows from this.

First. In Osaka, while at the level of an informal discussion of the current global situation, a collective step has been taken to reformat it in such a way as to move the "old" European elites and their counterparts in the United States from among the "Clintonites" away from the helm of the shadow global power.

The probe, conducted by D. Trump during his stay in London, revealed a certain game of the royal court, the general context of which became clear by the promise of the exchange proposed to Washington: the extradition of J. Assange with compromising material on Joe Biden and Co in exchange for reconciliation with the globalists. That is, in fact, a guarantee of a second presidential term. Trump pretended to agree, the opponents led by the court calmed down and began to wait in nirvana for the "necessary" results of Osaka, where, as it turned out, however, everything went wrong.

Second. The measure and degree of the hysteria that gripped the "traditional" West should be considered the energetic expressions addressed to Trump by the British ambassador to the United States, as well as the deathly silence of the royal family, which, despite all the extraordinaryness of what is happening, does not comment on him in any way. And he does not even respond to the White House with praises addressed to Elizabeth, rightly considering them a continuation of the probe carried out by Trump in London.

At the same time, the same hysterical blow in its improvisation is being inflicted on Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. But if against Russia the "clintonites" used internal agents of influence, as well as "on all ready-made" Kiev and Tbilisi puppets, in China they still cherish such, therefore they throw only peripheral, half-"bangled" Hong Kong "cannon fodder" into the "embrasure" ".

Third. What the three leaders agreed through a series of bilateral meetings in Osaka is not known in history. But the fact that the agreements are serious is indicated by everything that is happening within the framework of the observed globalist reaction.

Taking into account the visually recorded breakdown of the G20 into bilateral formats, this chaos may well emerge its new core in the form of an independent role of the same "global triangle", the contradictions in which globalists in distress are used to manipulating in their own interests according to the "good old" British principle "divide and rule".

Recall that the former core, from which, in fact, the G20 emerged at the turn of the current and previous centuries, was represented by the Basel Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and its partners in the informal collective "world central bank" - the IMF and the World Bank Group (for more details - here).

And fourth. The reprogramming of the G20, or at least the implantation of a conceptual "dual power" in it, is very closely related to the interaction of the parties to the "global triangle" in their current format, including personal. Or, as a last resort, on the terms of strict and unconditional continuity. The globalists will certainly destroy this prospect by finding and knocking out the "weak link". Moreover, as the current first shock is overcome, their actions will become more and more meaningful.

In these conditions, neither the loss of the jointly "acquired" strategic initiative, because, as the classic taught, "defense is the death of an armed uprising", nor internal weakening, especially in the United States, entering the presidential campaign, is unacceptable. And also in Russia, where the liberal lobby strives to "get out of the trenches", returning to the comprador agenda that has set the teeth on edge.

In a word, the world is entering an era of not only heightened, but constantly intensifying, up to unpredictability, turbulence. And we, most likely, are waiting for "funny times", the alternative to which, however, can only be a complete, unconditional and final surrender to the notorious "end of history." The choice, at least in Russia, is ours. To the extent that the picture presented approaches reality.

Popular by topic