Opinions #34/24

The American election campaign is entering a crucial phase with a flurry of news regarding the two candidates. Kamala Harris inherited the role of Democratic Party leader from the trembling hands of Joe Biden in the blink of an eye, in a flood of enthusiastic commentary from her supporters, her political donors, and much of the American media (and beyond). Donald Trump revealed that he doesn’t like the change of opponent when he thought he was a sure winner in the ring on November 5. “The Donald” has so far done nothing better than insult and ridicule Kamala as a woman, as an African-American, as a left-wing extremist… A choice that his advisers tried to correct for fear of repercussions for the female electorate, but which the tycoon, eager to return to the White House, has instead reaffirmed and, where possible, toughened. The Republican candidate is seeking a contradiction destined to put pressure on the Democratic field: if Biden can’t sustain a campaign, how will he be able to lead the country until January 20, the date of the next president’s inauguration? The Clintons, Obamas, Pelosi still have not been able to explain the inconsistency that affects voters. It is likely that Trump will use the topic in the September televised debate in which he will face off against Harris, and it promises to be an exciting political show for just under a hundred million viewers. After all, that’s not the only controversy at stake. On August 10, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Ross Douthat with a scathing headline: “There is still a Biden scandal.” The author fails to mention the scandal of money that circulated in the family for years by virtue of a millionaire contract obtained by Hunter Biden – thanks to his father, then vice president – from the largest Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. The trial in this case will begin in early September, and it can be foreseen that the image of the current president will not remain unaffected. Rather, the scandal the New York Times columnist is referring to affects the world that revolved around Joe Biden during his years in the White House. A kind of sanitary cordon that family, relatives, and lifelong friends had built around him from the beginning to avoid the dangers of going out into the open field. A defense network, which also included a large part of the US information system. The mainstream is so crushed in its support for Biden that it has hidden from public opinion what senators, congressmen, and journalists have known for some time but kept their mouths shut until irrefutable evidence came to light. “For example, we learned that Biden had not held a full cabinet meeting since last October and that they were only expecting prepared questions. We learned that his abilities peak between 10:00 and 16:00 and decline outside of that six-hour window. We learned that Democrats in Congress, liberal donors, and some journalists had something to do with Biden’s downfall, which they didn’t say publicly until the June debate fiasco.” “Principles and values” of mainstream liberal democracy are trampled on for reasons of convenience: the leader and his courtiers. The political battle is also fought in the same way. Just as war on the front lines can have different inclinations, depending on the degree of hypocrisy, with which it is about to be clothed. This is the case of conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Gianandrea Gaiani analyzes recent events with interesting elements that confirm the extent of the “proxy war” that the Euro-Atlantic West is waging against Moscow. In the layers of US “technical” information, something substantial on this subject has already surfaced in recent months, in May 2024: on AtlanticCouncil.org website, Kathryn Levantovskaya, deputy director of the Advanced Defense Program at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, writes in her analysis of the benefits of US supplies to Kiev: “Troops in Ukraine deploying US weapons provide a real-world feedback loop on the reliability and accuracy of US platforms, as well as their compatibility and integration with existing systems. The United States is taking an inventory of flaws and vulnerabilities without spending a single pair of boots in the field.” No hypocrisy, someone from across the Atlantic manages to show their face. And it is still better than the ostrich policy so popular not only in Washington but also in European chancelleries. Better, for what’s left of Western appeal in worlds once enamored with European prowess and American wealth. Like India, a country in dispute between the West and the rest of the world, whose rapid development, as Daniele Mancini explains, has important similarities and differences with that of China. India as the third pillar, it is worth remembering, of that “strategic triangle” that Russian Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov began to talk about towards the end of the 1990s, at the first signs of irrepressible unilateralism on the American side, initiated during the time of Bill Clinton in the direction of gradual eastward expansion of NATO.