We start our tour with the Guardian newspaper, which came with an editorial titled “The Guardian view on Putin and the world: It’s not just about China.”
The newspaper wrote that days before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Russia recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent republics, one of the strongest condemnations came from Kenyas envoy to the United Nations.
She noted that “in two United Nations General Assembly resolutions – the first condemning the invasion, and the second blaming Russia for creating a humanitarian crisis – 140 or more countries agreed. Only four voted with Russia to oppose the two resolutions and they are a group of rogue states that include Belarus, Eritrea, Syria, and North Korea.”
“However, widespread condemnation along with unexpected Western unity should not be mistaken for Russia’s isolation. Having boasted of a “borderless” relationship (with Moscow), China shares a common interest in the face of the global power of the United States and NATO ( (NATO), China is now seeking to portray itself on a more subtle side and avoid economic and political damage – but it is not, in fact, it is not distancing itself from Russia. Beijing is not alone. Few of the world’s most populous countries, and only a few prominent players outside The West, they criticized Putin.”
The Guardian lists examples of such leaders: “Imran Khan, the Pakistani prime minister, was in Moscow when (Russian) tanks rolled into Ukraine. India – which has long-term strategic relations with Russia and is deeply concerned about Moscow’s relations with both Pakistan and China – discussed Swap the Russian currency for the Indian currency to help Moscow overcome Western sanctions. In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro – who is courted by Putin – sees the war as a “good opportunity” to encroach on indigenous lands in search of raw materials for fertilizer.”
“Russia’s influence and engagement with the Middle East has expanded significantly since its decisive role in the Syrian war, causing many countries to hed their bets in the midst of a broader reorganization of the region. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently declined a call from Joe Biden—that A week after he spoke to Vladimir Putin, the UAE refused to take a call. It voted against Russia in the UN General Assembly, where the votes are non-binding and largely symbolic, but abstained in a similar vote in the Security Council, which would have been It has more weight.”
South Africa initially called for the withdrawal of Russian forces, but later blamed NATO’s desire to expand as the reason for the war. It was joined by 16 other African countries in abstaining in the first vote of the General Assembly, thanks to growing economic ties as well as entrenched positions of non-violence. Alignment and support of the Soviet Union for liberation movements.
The newspaper considered that the war launched – and did not cause – a new and long phase of reshaping the international system, and that what it called “Trumpism” – the policy of former US President Donald Trump – did more than the Chinese power did in accelerating perceptions of the decline of the US role on the international stage.
The newspaper noted that selective sympathy for Ukrainian refugees in Europe, and double standards manifested in widespread hostility and indifference to the suffering of refugees fleeing other wars, have reinforced the “skepticism and hatred” of some countries towards the United States and the West.
Putin’s current stance reflects not only his desire to help unsavory regimes and his malign meddling around the world, but also the sins and failures of the United States and the West. Addressing these failures is not a hopelessly idealistic endeavor, but a realistic and necessary endeavor if we are to forge the necessary strong alliances. against cruel acts of aggression.
And we move to The Times newspaper, which wrote an editorial entitled “The Times’ View of Joe Biden’s Speech on Ukraine: Presidential Lapses.”
The newspaper dealt with what came in the US President’s speech during his recent visit to Poland, and wrote, “At the end of an impassioned speech that President (Biden) condemned Putin, he shouted: For God’s sake, this man can’t stay in power! The statement was improvised. It was from the heart. Express what millions feel in the West and perhaps in Russia as well.”
“It was also a grave diplomatic blunder. By calling for regime change, Biden gave the Kremlin a propaganda gift to support his claims that Russia was fighting malign Western powers, seeking to undermine its security and overthrow its government. He also seemed to commit NATO to a goal beyond anything agreed upon.”
And the White House soon issued a clarification: the president meant that Putin could not be allowed to exercise his power over his neighbors or the region. It was a credible retreat. The Europeans were already worried. President Macron said it was necessary to avoid (escalation) and said that NATO should do its best. his effort to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. It was left to the ingenious and dependable Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, to insist that the United States had no policy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else.”
“Unfortunately, this was Biden’s third gaffe in as many days. Last Thursday at the G7 summit, he said that if Russia used chemical weapons, the US would “respond in kind.” Was this a threat that US forces would release internationally banned chemical weapons on Russia? A day later, he spoke to the 82nd Airborne Division about Ukraine, and he said, “You’ll see when you’re there – and some of you were there. Was this a sign that NATO forces would soon be sent to Ukraine? Or did he reveal that some were already there?” secretly?”
The newspaper believed that the good explanation is that Biden feels the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism – which is the subject of his inaugural speech – and allows his feelings to precede the text written for him, and the harshest judgment is what his Republican rivals promote that his leadership is failing because he no longer has the focus or the stamina to do with presidential duties.
The Times wrote, “Rumors of dementia in the Commander in Chief, even if they are mere rumours, are extremely devastating. The West faces a military and potential nuclear threat in the heart of Europe it has not known since 1945. Unity, cohesion and trust are essential, and will only be possible if that trust is extended.” to the highest levels of American leadership.
“The personal burden on the president has increased dramatically, as voters expect to see their leaders at summits and foreign visits, and are available for unequivocal comment on every issue at almost any time of the day or night.”
“Mr. Biden has a skilled team around him. His statements have now been tightly written and controlled to prevent blunders. But there are troubling concerns that this pace is too fast. He (Biden) needs to prove these concerns wrong.”