US or China. On the Samiti G-20 the choice will have to make everyone-and Russia is here to nothing

Yes, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky stated that he would boycott the event, to which Ukraine was invited for the first time since the founding of the site in 1999, if there will be Russian President Vladimir Putin. Thus, the participants of the summit were faced with a choice - to boycott the aggressor, or, by indulging him, to reject the victim of aggression.

However, the choice for participants and the owner of the G-20 summit could be much deeper and more pragmatic than philosophical reflections on the topic of helping good and condemning evil. And this choice sooner or later will have to be made every country. The question is whether the demarche of the Ukrainian side (and the abandonment of a historical chance of participation in such a status event) is a separate position The global border between the free world and autocracy.

The problem of this line is that it is difficult to lay on the principle of democracy/autocracy. Yes, the most odious dictatorship from Pyongyan to Damascus is clearly clear, if not on the side of Beijing (which tries the crown of the autocratic world), then exactly against Washington (who confidently carries the title of the main defender of democracy in the world). However, many democratic countries such as Argentina or India or the same Summit owner - Indonesia do not take a clear position.

On the other hand, Middle Eastern monarchies are still more than Washington than Beijing. As a last resort, it was so far. Therefore, within the G-20 platform split, if it happens, it is not on a high-spiritual ideological principle, but on the very landed pragmatic interests of its members.

Although the issue of choice between Ukraine and the Russian Federation at the summit was gone after Volodymyr Zelenskyy still decided not to leave the country during the war, the issue of choosing between poles of influence will only increase in most branches of cooperation between states. No matter how much the club member states do not want, the world now rolls back to a two-pole system, not to collective management (which this site is actually seen by its participants).

One of the important factors in the defeat of the USSR in the previous two -pole confrontation, which became history under the name "Cold War", was a factor of allies. In the US fairway were the most developed countries in the world - Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, South Korea; Still, France was on the US side, though with special opinion. All allies of the USSR were far behind from Hegemon for military, economic, technological and political capacity.

China, which in the 70's was a pale shadow of itself today, too, eventually switched to the US side (famous "shuttle diplomacy" Henry Kisinger). Therefore, the China can now collect the whole of Africa and the DPRK with Belarus, Myanmar and Syria in addition, but all of which are taken by GDP and military potential do not reach only a few members of the pro-American G-7, even without the US.

In such circumstances, the attitude of the G-20 members has the opportunity to demonstrate real qualitative, not quantitative schedule and show Beijing, is it worth starting at all? Unless, of course, it is not too late. Therefore, in the right corner of the US ring is a country with the highest economic indicators, a standard of innovation, a high standard of living and the strongest army in the world (with a significant separation from pursuers).

In the left corner, the contender for the role of the "other pole" is the PRC, which is still the second indicators, but in many ways (especially the military potential and GDP per capita) with a significant lag from the active hegemon should be distinguished. Definitely on the US side, the United Kingdom and Australia are historically the most reliable allies that, in addition to geopolitical interests, are united by a common cultural and civilization paradigm.

They even created their block Aukus, which many analysts called "anti -Chinese". Morally next to these countries is Canada, which is not included in Aukus (which is otherwise called), but in other aspects, the foreign policy of this country is as friendly as possible to its southern neighbor. Throughout France, Italy and Germany, however, on the example of the Russian-Ukrainian war, they demonstrated that strategic terms retain unity with other members of the "global event".

Rome and Berlin are still more interested in independence on the European continent and its environs, and Paris was hurt by fingers in the process of Aukus formation. Cultural and historical traditions are not similar, but urgent safety needs make reliable allies of Washington South Korea and Japan.

It is interesting here that it is a scattered dog Beijing - the DPRK does not allow these countries to lavish significantly, even if they were very sought, because the American presence factor for them is an existential issue (especially in South Korea, which is formally in a state of war with the north) . And then - more interesting. Let's start with the US ally in NATO - Turkey. Ankara tries to strengthen his geopolitical weight, balancing between opposing sides. Effective, though risky path.

Similar policies have been pursued and pursued at different times, in particular, France, Israel, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan. As you can see from this sample, the consequences are quite diverse. Under Erdogan's reign, Turkey tries to pursue the most active foreign policy, find out its benefits everywhere and try to get it. However, it is not always the way they planned in Ankara.

When the Turks wanted to get the F-35 fighter and Russian S-400 F-35 fighter at the same time, they were eventually thrown out of the aviation project. However, it was a rare case when Turkey crossed the real "red line", for which she was punished immediately. In fact, Erdogan is skillfully maneuvering within the allowed, without entering a sharp conflict with the United States.

For example, he compromised on Finland and Sweden's membership at the NATO Summer Summit (we keep track of what this story will end now), as well as closed the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits for the Russian Federation after attacking Ukraine. At the same time, Ankara continues to be a reliable partner of the United States in the placement of nuclear weapons in its territory.

For Washington, the existence of an ally, which is perceived for his own and on the other side of the barricades of the democratic world, is valuable. Thus, in the process of withdrawing NATO troops from Afghanistan, the option was discussed there to leave a limited contingent of Turkish forces, which are also the troops of the Alliance, and at the same time it is impossible to wage a sacred war against them - because Muslims.

So Ankara has his opinion, when the situation is aggravated, he still chooses the side of his main allies on NATO. India, like Turkey, claims to strengthen its role in the world, even if possible - to the world hegemon. There are foundations: the presence of a nuclear weapon, a powerful economy and, if not first, then the second place in the world in the world.

The country whose area is larger than the territory of Western Europe does not want to put up with the status of a "third world" country and is going to go to its goal. With China, she has (was it already?) A common friend - Moscow. India is combined with Russian historical ties and access to cheap energy and a wide range of military equipment. However, it was the defeat of the Russian army on the fronts of Ukraine. On the other hand, China itself is very simple in India.

The same applies to interaction with the Islamic world in Pakistan. Therefore, in the case of diplomatic exacerbation of New Delhi, it will not risk staying with Moscow (whose prospects are too vague) face-to-face between Beijing and the Muslim world without the support of Washington. So if India does not go for the US, it will accurately oppose China.

South Africa, in contrast to the same Turkey, on the contrary, a country that was once a confident regional leader and is now moving along the descending trajectory of geopolitical significance. Not all its citizens agree to put up with this state of things. Stuart Mbanyele, an expert of the Analytical Center for Good Governance Africa, criticizes the too passive position of his country, including the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

However, despite the wealth of natural resources, praetoria has now had a little influence. In recent decades, the international position of South Africa has weakened. It became a "third world state", which is significantly dependent on Chinese investments, which only increased in the 21st century. South Africa is Beijing's largest economic partner on the continent.

Significant investments in the country have even raised some suspicions of local opposition about the personal interest of some authorities on this issue. The importance of praetoria for China is confirmed by the fact of its invitation to BRICS, where China, together with the Russian Federation, Brazil and India, try to create their next alternative to the Western integration association.

Also a significant humanitarian factor in cooperation is the anti -colonial narratives that promote China on the continent. Argentina and Brazil are the clear hegemons of the Global South. The largest economies of South America (Brazil - in general of the whole Southern Hemisphere) want to realize their leadership, but they were not lucky with neighbors from the north.

Since 1823, the United States has proclaimed that America (all) for Americans, probably in mind, not only on the northern continent, but in the whole part of the world, named after the Italian-Spanish researcher of the Middle Ages and modern times. This is the case when you, for example, run at a speed that allows you to fight for the gold of the Olympiad, but it is in your city that the world record holder is in sports, so you do not see you at the level of your region.

Such geopolitical realities have actually condemned the interests of Brazil and Argentina with and among themselves. However, if in the country of coffee, as well as in the homeland, Gandhi Mahatma is playing on the edge and within the geopolitical discourse of the United States, the Argentines have recently shifted significantly towards China.

Beijing skillfully plays on ancient images of Latin Americans, in particular on the UK for folkland, which in the Middle Kingdom, seductively in Latin Americans, is called Malvin. Within the Olympic diplomacy, China has taken significant real steps to drag Argentina to its side. However, are you ready in Buenos Aires for direct confrontation with the United States, if you still have to choose? Mexico stands in similar positions.

Her relations with Washington are not cloudless, but the US is close and China is far away. One thing is to have the price in matters of migration, and quite another - to oppose such a mighty neighbor, who eventually leave the deserted territory of his or her notable neighbor without water. The master of the forum - Indonesia has close economic ties with both the US and China.

However, despite the proximity to the Celestial (both cultural and geographical), its inhabitants are still more positive about overseas partners. Interestingly, the most anti -Chinese mood is heated by the Chinese diaspora. However, it's not so easy. However, close economic cooperation affects the foreign policy of the island state. Eve Fitrii, Professor of Jakarta University, says President Joko with a Processing ruler.

The reason for this is a close personal friendship with the head of the PRC Xi Jinping. Fitri continues her opinion, pointing out that in Muslim Indonesian society there is a widespread thesis about the hypocrisy of the "collective event", especially emphasizes the attitude towards the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel and its lack of knowledge of human rights.

Therefore, in the society of this country, Russian-Chinese narratives about Ukraine as a victim of the event of the West are strong. That is, the democratic Indonesian society, of course, condemns the terror of the Russian army against the civilian population of Ukraine, but responsibility for it also rests on the West, which seems to be "re -entered", which was why the innocent state was injured. There is fears that Indonesia can repeat the fate of Ukraine.

All these factors contribute to the fact that the owner of the summit is likely to choose the side of Beijing in the event of exacerbation of contradictions. After all, the unacceptability of condemnation and alienation was stated as a way of resolving a crisis and the need for dialogue. In fact, this means support for China and the Russian Federation. In an interesting situation, Saudi Arabia was.

A few months ago, the sedentary Prince Mohammed (the actual leader of the kingdom) argued with Joseph Biden on oil production. And now it is significantly dependent on the US military support before the threat of the Russian ally and China - Iran. However, this does not mean automatic support for Washington's position. After all, those who have a "leash" in their hands can lower it and can hold it. The threat of Iranian aggression is a significant argument and at the same time a hook for Riyadh.

And is the leader of the true Eastern despotism to entrust the safety of his kingdom (therefore his own) democratic block with which he is shared by a value gap? It may be more reliable to take the side of the most closest authoritarian countries, receiving guarantees from them that a hacking neighbor will not launch their missiles on Saudi sites.

The question is only - can you measure the level of dependence on someone religious fanatics who manage the theocratic dictatorship? The Russian Federation is now in the situation driven into the corner of the rat, where it has led so frivolously unleashed by her aggressive war against Ukraine. Its armed armed forces deprives Moscow of our armed forces for maneuver and remains to hope for the mercy of powerful states.

In the end, her delegation was headed not by the President, but only the Foreign Minister, which makes it actually removes from the game on this site. And a year ago, the Russian Federation claimed the status of the third center of influence. Also, the twentieth member of the EU group is a superstition, which consists of 28 entities whose foreign policy is too versatile so that it can be entered in a certain concept.

This is a significant problem in the European community, but not the problem of this year's G-20 summit. Therefore, theoretically in the sample of rich and influential (it is important to note that the list of G-20 participants does not fully correspond to the rating of states by GDP) is a clear advantage on the US side. Definitely with Beijing is now only driven into the corner of the Russian Federation. At the same time, almost half of the participants are clearly on Washington's side.

At the same time, those units that can be considered loyal to the PRC are more likely to "do not trust" Americans than they feel any obvious sympathies for the Middle Kingdom. Also, most countries that "smell fried" will choose Washington. European partners demonstrated this after the Great War on their continent. Now the baton of choice goes to Riyadh, who, unlike Berlin, Paris and Rome, can pay his own blood for his uncertainty.