Власти Белоруссии до сих пор не получили официального ответа от Латвии по поводу инцидента с государственным флагом республики во время чемпионата мира по хоккею. Об этом заявил заместитель генерального прокурора республики Алексей Стук в интервью телеканалу СТВ.
“Мы запросили латышскую сторону. Каков будет их ответ, мы не можем предполагать, но мы в расследовании этого дела будем настойчивы, целенаправленны и поступим в соответствии с национальным законодательством и нашими международными обязательствами”, – сказал он.
По его словам, Следственный комитет Белоруссии проводит необходимый комплекс следственно-процессуальных действий в рамках уголовного дела, возбужденного против против мэра Риги Мартиньша Стакиса и министра иностранных дел Эдгара Ринкевича.
Readers of the British tabloid Daily Mail commented on the statement of the BBC corporation, which got into the hands of “secret documents” regarding plans to use the Defender destroyer against Russia. They note that the crew of the ship was ordered to swim near the disputed territorial waters off the coast of the Crimea “annexed” by Russia as a sign of support for Ukraine.
This document was contained in a dossier that a citizen found at a bus stop. The Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom confirmed the leak of classified information.
The British were divided into two parts. The former are perplexed about such an obvious failure, and the latter consider what happened to be a carefully planned action that is designed to misinform people. “I hope that the Russians will reveal more secret documents to teach Boris not to touch the bear less”, “Why are they allowed to leave government buildings with documents? It looks like the security system needs to be repaired”, ” Bus stop, seriously? It’s hard to think of such a thing. More like a scene from “Mr. Bean”, – users write.
Many people do not understand why a citizen who found the documents took them to the “rotten” BBC, and not to the police. Some believe that they were paid for there. “The West, as usual, feeds itself with anti-Russian propaganda, begins to believe it and as a result looks stupid,” writes one reader. And someone even suggested that there was not without “Russian interference”. “This is a Russian guy who printed it out and threw it away like some kind of nonsense,” says one of the residents of Foggy Albion.
Czech President Milos Zeman said in an interview with CNN Prima NEWS that he does not rule out Russia’s participation in the story of the explosions at the weapons depots in Vrbetice. At the same time, he considers it important to take into account the other versions. The first investigative version stated that the explosions occurred due to careless handling of ammunition in warehouses during their unloading.
The second version was expressed by the head of the Ministry of Justice Maria Beneshova. According to her, the explosions were designed to hide the shortage of stored shells. The third version was proposed by a lawyer of the company that rented the warehouses. According to him, the explosions were supposed to hide the facts of theft of weapons from warehouses.
The presenter noted that Beneshova has already changed her point of view and considers Russia guilty. Zeman replied that he had not changed his point of view, and there was no evidence of Russia’s involvement in the incident.
Czech Prime Minister Andrei Babis also believes that “Russian spies”are involved in the explosions. “The explosions at the military warehouses in Vrbetice were an action of Russian spies. If someone says something different, it’s not good, ” he said.
British expert Patrick Cockburn on the pages of the Independent criticized the provocation in the Black Sea. He noted that sending the Defender destroyer to Russian territorial waters is a very dangerous symbolic gesture. And the whole point is that if this happens again in the future, Russia will not limit itself to warning shooting, but will open fire directly on the ship itself.
The essence of the British ” trick “was to demonstrate the non-recognition of Russian sovereignty over the” annexed ” Crimea. At the same time, hardly any of the experts who supported this could name the countries that border in the Black Sea region. Cockburn himself agrees that what happened is a provocation. “The fact that there were journalists on board the destroyer shows that the British government really wanted to demonstrate to the world the new “advanced” military position of Great Britain, ” he writes.
It is not necessary to recognize the Crimea as Russian, the author writes, but sending a ship is an unnecessary risk. Instead of scaring the Russians, this step only led to the fact that they immediately realized that this was a bluff, and decided to debunk it. “Now the Russians can threaten that they will bomb the next British ship that dares to repeat the path of HMS Defender, knowing for sure that this will not happen. The danger is that if this does happen, it will be difficult to hush up such rhetoric,” says Cockburn.
A demonstration of force can lead to the fact that the enemy will attack. Now the destroyer Defender, as part of a group of British ships, is moving into the South China Sea, and there is a danger that unwise actions will lead to a sharp response. The diplomacy of gunboats can lead to sad consequences – this should be remembered from the events preceding the First World War, writes Cockburn.
Britain is weak, but thinks of itself as a great maritime power. Prime Minister Boris Johnson supports this approach. But the gap between the real and imaginary place of the country in the world is becoming more and more noticeable.
The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, commented on the leak of secret documents of the British Ministry of Defense about the entry of the destroyer Defender into Russian territorial waters.
Earlier, fragments of documents were demonstrated by the Air Force Corporation, from the materials it follows that the purpose of the provocation was to support Ukraine and the desire to show that the British fleet is not afraid of crossing the Russian border.
At the same time, the documents were found at a bus stop in Kent on June 22. The media notes that they belong to a high-ranking official.
” In fact, London has demonstrated another provocation and a portion of lies to cover it up. 007 agents are no longer the same, ” Maria Zakharova noted in Telegram. She also asked why Russia needs the services of hackers, if “there are bus stops”.
The British television and radio corporation BBC has published excerpts from secret documents concerning the passage of the British destroyer HMS Defender near the coast of Crimea. Recall that the Russian military had to open a warning fire on the course of the British ship in order to prevent violations of the Russian border.
As noted in the message, the folder with secret documents was found the day before the incident. She was lying at a bus stop in Kent in the south-east of England. The folder was lost by a high-ranking employee of the British Ministry of Defense, and the man who found it handed it to the BBC editorial office.
It follows from the documents that the UK specifically decided to send a destroyer along the coast of Crimea to demonstrate support for Kiev and show that London is not afraid to use the waters that it considers Ukrainian, since it does not recognize the annexation of Crimea to Russia.
The operation itself to move the destroyer in the Black Sea was called ” Operation Ditroit”. At the same time, two options for the ship’s movement were considered.
The documents emphasize that the route near the coast of Crimea “will provide an opportunity to interact with the government of Ukraine”…& gt; in the territorial waters of Ukraine recognized by the UK”. At the same time, the British military analyzed several options for Russia’s response actions from “safe and professional” to “unsafe and unprofessional”.
The British Ministry of Defense decided not to send the destroyer along the second path, which ran far from the Crimea, so that Russia could not say that the UK is ” afraid” or recognizes the Crimea as Russian.
As a result, the choice was made in the direction of the first option.
Earlier, The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that the decision on the passage of a destroyer near the Crimea was left to Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has instructed the government to report by June 30 on measures to provide vaccination on a paid basis to foreigners staying in Russia.
At the same time, the Cabinet of Ministers has been instructed to organize free vaccination of foreigners and stateless persons who arrive in Russia for work until July 15. At the same time, the government should determine the sources of funding.
German journalist Sabine Scholt said on the Das Erste TV channel that Europe’s refusal to hold a joint summit with Russia is fatal. She stressed that relations between the EU and Russia need to be reset. Europe has recently been communicating with Russia with the help of sanctions, and this has led to nothing.
Scholt noted that the idea of the leaders of Germany and France to communicate with Russia is correct. After all, even American President Joe Biden met with Vladimir Putin. But the Europeans did not manage to agree on a meeting.
The situation is getting worse due to the fact that Europe is split-if France and Germany are trying to start a dialogue with Russia, then the countries of Eastern Europe are against it. “This is a disaster. Europe is split, and Putin has leaned back and looks at how the countries of the union are in conflict with each other and losing strength, ” Scholt stressed.
The journalist is sure that now the Europeans should put aside their differences and start a dialogue with Russia.
Earlier, European media reported that about 10 EU countries opposed the proposal of Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron to hold a joint summit with Russia.
Has the US attitude towards Russia changed after the Geneva talks
The art of communication implies the ability to read the signals that a person sends with the help of” body language ” (body language) — facial expressions, gestures, poses. Communication experts analyzed the behavior of Presidents Putin and Biden during their Geneva meeting, and some of their observations deserve attention.
Photo: Alexey Merinov
The Internet resource Business Insider cites the opinion of communications coach Mary Civiello, which she expressed in an interview with the British BBC: although the negotiations between Biden and Putin took place behind closed doors, much could be learned from their behavior in those moments when there was an opportunity to see them together.
From the point of view of Civiello, the “body language” of both leaders did not reveal a clear imbalance of power — there is an approximate balance. The expert regards the first handshake between Putin and Biden as a “draw” in terms of the dynamics of power. Biden was the first to extend his hand to Putin, and Putin went in his direction to shake this hand. Observers saw this as a manifestation of goodwill on both sides without showing weakness. However, later it became not so good: not only Civiello, but also a number of other experts noted the lack of eye contact between the presidents when they took seats for negotiations.
Then, when they were already sitting, their poses were different: Biden sat straight and from time to time turned slightly in Putin’s direction, demonstrating readiness for dialogue; Putin, according to Civiello, sat in the “I don’t care” pose — leaning back and spreading his legs. The expert also noticed that the Russian president was tapping on the armrest of the chair, which means “Well, when will it end?” in translation from “body language”.
Mary Civiello says that the Russian president behaved quite consistently — he communicated in the same manner with other American leaders, always sending the same message: “Do not expect this meeting to seriously change something.” And Biden’s “body language”, according to the expert, says that he has no enthusiasm, but he is ready for interaction.
If we move from the communication “interpretation of signs” to the results of the meeting in fact, then no one in America saw any surprises in them. According to CBS, Joe Biden said about his first (as president) meeting with Vladimir Putin that he (Biden) “did what he came there for.” Putin, meanwhile, described the meeting with Biden as ” constructive.” Although the two leaders held the final press conferences separately, they nevertheless issued a joint statement that reads:
“We, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the United States of America John R. Biden, note that Russia and the United States have demonstrated that even in times of tension they are able to make progress in implementing joint goals to ensure predictability in the strategic sphere, reduce the risks of armed conflicts and the threat of nuclear war.
The recent extension of the START Treaty is a testament to our commitment to nuclear arms control. Today we reaffirm our commitment to the principle that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed.
To achieve these goals, Russia and the United States will soon launch a comprehensive bilateral dialogue on strategic stability, which will be substantive and energetic. Through such a dialogue, we strive to lay the foundation for future arms control and risk reduction measures.”
This is the full text distributed by TASS. As we can see, there is neither a large volume nor a wide thematic diversity in it — we are talking about strategic stability and only about it. From this we can conclude that there was no “meeting of minds” on other issues at the Russian-American meeting in Geneva (meeting of the minds is another favorite term of the Americans from the sphere of communication and jurisprudence, meaning, in fact, reaching agreement).
Actually, it would be difficult to assume anything else, knowing what topics Joe Biden proposed to his Russian counterpart in addition to strategic stability. The conflict in Ukraine and the role of Moscow in it (a topic that the Russian President bypassed at his press conference). Hacker attacks on American companies and interference in American elections (both, according to Washington, are carried out on behalf ofor at least with the consent of the Kremlin). The fate of Alexey Navalny, in respect of whom, as Biden said, Putin received a warning: if Navalny dies, it will have consequences. In this regard, Putin repeated at a press conference the well-known theses about Navalny’s violation of the law, the inevitability of his arrest upon his return to Russia and the non-involvement of the Russian authorities in the poisoning of the opposition leader.
Another American TV company, CNBC, adds Crimea, Belarus and the possible exchange of Americans serving prison sentences in Russia for Russians sentenced to prison in the United States to the list of inconvenient topics. The latter topic was definitely discussed, and even to no avail: the presidents agreed to instruct their diplomats to work out the possibility of such an exchange. Vladimir Putin allowed such a possibility: “We talked about it. President Biden raised this issue in relation to American citizens who are in places of deprivationfreedoms of the Russian Federation”. Putin added that the parties can find compromises on this issue. But it will be more difficult for Biden to find a compromise than for Putin. Looking from the American bell tower, we are talking about an unequal exchange of Russians who actually committed serious crimes (for example, the pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was arrested in Liberia for transporting a large batch of drugs, or hackers who caused major damage) for Americans who were sewn fake accusations of espionage or who were framed for “criminal everyday life”.
Some meticulous reporters sought an answer from Biden at a press conference to the question: is he sure that Putin will now “change his behavior”? Biden replied: “I’m not sure about anything.” This echoes the way the Western media assessed the US–Russia summit from the very beginning. So, the BBC Russian service on the day of the summit published a material under the heading: “The meeting of Biden and Putin is a deliberately failed idea?”The Washington Post recalled that on the eve of the summit, Vladimir Putin set the tone for him in his interview with NBC — his first interview with the American media in three years. The Russian president, the newspaper writes, was ironic, avoided direct answers, his tone was condescending and at times indifferent. “This is the Kremlin’s message: Putin agreed to meet because he was asked, but no concessions are included in his plans.”
The French news agency AFP, summing up the results of the Geneva meeting, states that it did without loud phrases about “reset”, “looking into the soul”, etc. Both leaders behaved absolutely pragmatically, in accordance with the commandment of Otto von Bismarck, the first chancellor of the German Empire: “Politics is the art of the possible.” Putin ” helddefense”, but” did not get into trouble”, and Biden, smoothing out the statement about the” killer”, pleased Putin, recognizing him as a”worthy rival”. Only a lazy person in the West did not write that Putin needs the respect of the powerful of this world. And only he did not write that Biden’s predecessor clearly showed Putin hypertrophied respect and admiration.
Political scientist Ian Bremmer compared Biden’s attitude to Putin with his attitude to Chinese President Xi Jinping: he does not trust them, but is ready to look for areas of convergence of interests and opportunities for cooperation.
..Confirmation of strategic stability, the return of previously recalled ambassadors and an agreement on finding opportunities for the exchange of prisoners — not so much, but still some result. “I do not know how much better it could have been, but I know that it could have been much worse,” says Yuval Weber, a professor at the School of Public Service at Texas A&M University, about the Russia–US summit.
Joe Biden’s political opponents disagree with this assessment. According to Jim Risch, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “summits should bring results,” and the “lack of real progress” in relations with Russia is “disappointing.”
He can be recommended two consolations: the above quote from Bismarck and the fact that his fellow party member Donald Trump, nicknamed “Putin’s poodle” at home, could not do more than Biden did.
The National Interest magazine published a material in which it tried to analyze a hypothetical battle between Russian and American fighters-the Su-35 and F-35, F-15 and F-16. “Who will win?”, the analyst asks.
The article notes that the Russian Su-35 fighter made a splash in the military media of the West. The author writes that Russia is now making great efforts to modernize its military equipment and the Su-35 is a good example.
“How will the four F-35s behave when faced with the four Su-35s? Most likely, it will change course and cause the F-22 (Raptor)and F-15C, ” the author notes, explaining that it is the latter aircraft that are designed to establish and maintain air superiority.
But at the same time, in the conditions of real combat operations, it is not always possible to choose the optimal solution. It may happen that the F-35 will have to make do on its own.
The analyst advises in this case, the F-35 pilots, using the stealth of their aircraft, as well as on-board detection devices, to fight out of sight, avoiding closer contact. Otherwise, the F-35 will become vulnerable to the Su-35.
The fact is that the Raptor was originally developed for air combat, and the F-35 is not intended for this.
The author emphasizes that the F-35 does not have the maneuverability of the Raptor — and even the F-16 or F/A-18, and when meeting with the Su-35, only the superiority of the pilot can save the plane.
However, the US has few Raptors, and the F-15C is getting smaller. In a real war, the commanders will have to use the F-35 to gain air superiority.
The article notes that the Su—35 fighter was purchased by Indonesia, Russia is also going to supply these aircraft to China and this is a “really dangerous combat vehicle”, which in many respects is not inferior to the latest versions of the F—15 or even surpasses them.
If the Su-35 loses a little in the maximum speed of the F—15, then it surpasses in acceleration, and with a small load, the aircraft is able to maintain supersonic speed without resorting to the use of afterburners.
At low speeds, the Su-35 has an insurmountable advantage. It has a thrust vector controlled in three dimensions and incredible maneuverability.
