Just when we thought we would be able to talk about some slightly different topics, the week that passed along with the weekend simply exploded with events that we can't help but mention. So the topics about artificial intelligence and how the corporate world has turned the world into a capitalist panopticon will probably be in one of the future editions of this forum. Today we will debate hot topics. From the Simon Hersh story that ignited the world of conspiracy theories, to Xi's visit to Russia and reports of a possible shipment of depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine, to the deployment of Russian nuclear warheads in Belarus, to the increasingly loud stories of a potential rift in the Western coalition and Macron's freelancing in China – these are the topics we will start and discuss, as much as space allows. Let's go in order.

Simon Hersh shocked the Western public with his story in which he claims there is evidence of US involvement in the attack on Nord Stream 2. Even more frightening is that Putin, in an interview he gave to loyal reporter Pavel Zarubin (and through which he announces his next steps , at least so far) confirmed this, citing the Russian investigation that corroborated Hersh's story. In the interview, it became clear that Russia will respond to the information, according to which London will deliver ammunition with depleted uranium to Ukraine. Interestingly, Putin admits that it is not a weapon that is classified as a non-conventional weapon of mass destruction, but added that it will have serious consequences for the entire environment. These consequences, he adds, can be far-reaching.

What was very interesting from this interview is that Putin officially announced that in response to the developments around Ukraine, Russia will deploy nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus. In the interview, according to Putin, the arguments for what Russia should do by July this year stem from the fact that the United States has so far deployed nuclear warheads in several NATO countries. There is nothing controversial here for Putin, and it does not even harm the START agreement, which Russia has already declared that it is going outside of it - in other words, such an agreement will not apply to it. Although there were many other points in the exhaustive interview, the ones that most seriously affect some of the current events are the meeting with Xi, but also the demonstrations about the pension system in France. We will devote ourselves more seriously to both events, but not from Putin's perspectives. What we will just note here is that, unlike here, the media in the global south, above all in Asia, have been very critical of the violent approach of the French police towards the protesters. Some ironically asking about democracy in the "cradle of democracy", and some even went so far as to deny Macron's role as the leader of the liberal-democratic world.

However, what is particularly interesting about the visit is the stark contrast in reporting between the media. On the one hand, the media from the Western Hemisphere, including a number of influential organizations, set a critical tone for the visit. In contrast, the media from countries that are considered challengers, revisionists of the liberal-democratic dominated world, had a mostly pompous tone. The visit itself is interesting from several aspects. In 2015, if you recall, when Putin was asked which allies Russia could rely on in what it was beginning to do, Putin quoted Russian Tsar Alexander III, who once said that Russia had only two allies, namely the land army and the navy.

In his analysis, for example, Frederic Kempe for the Atlantic Council uses this statement to emphasize the exact opposite – that the collapse it experienced in Ukraine nevertheless made Russia necessarily look for an ally. At the same time, many other media emphasized the fact that with this the supposed neutrality of China is going into oblivion. What is still important to emphasize is that regardless of whether the attitudes and expectations of China being neutral were real or not (especially after the statement during the opening of the Olympic Games last year), it seems that China's global ambition has found its operationalization.

It is quite clear to China that the war in Ukraine, regardless of whether it has the same plans with Russia, is a chance to take a side through which it can more easily shape its position in the changing world. Thus, the whole situation suits China for three reasons. First, the war should wear out potential rivals, the western satellites of the US (the Europeans). If it can drive them apart, as some are rightly beginning to notice, even better. That rift is especially important if it is with the United States, because China, unlike Russia, does not like deglobalization, but rather globalization. The comfort that China has to give to Europeans after the big bang necessarily makes it love globalization. Arno, but that globalization must be in a way and according to rules in which China will have the main say, not the liberal-democratic elite. Secondly, in conditions where China, after two long years of a closed economy due to the pandemic, decided to open up and in conditions where it will not be able to afford the re-export of energy, above all gas to Europe, and the "deal" with Russia is a plus for it. This "deal" is both a salvation for Putin, who is weak with semi-finished products and desperately lacks microprocessor technology (chips), but also another arsenal to be able to continue the war with Ukraine and even defy the West by force. Hence, Xi's words about joint changes and the historic opportunity in cooperation with Putin are much more than symbolism. They have a serious synergy, which for the West is an axis-adversary and a threat of an existential nature. Thirdly, the meeting for Xi is of particular importance for the rest of the world in which the US, knowingly or not, seems to be leaving a vacuum, which China is bravely filling for the time being.

That, my dears, is the Middle East, where China has begun to define itself as a global player. Regardless of what some have sarcastically or less cynically scoffed at this ambition, one thing is clear – China has the potential (whether it succeeds and remains unchallenged in it is another) to transform relations in the Middle East. It would likely be through realignment and reorganization of relations between the main players on the ground, through revision of the Arab-Israeli divide with a complex web of relations, all with the sole purpose of channeling the region into its own global ambitions. Criticisms of Putin, since the meeting with China, are, to say the least, disparaging. From portraying himself as Xi's lap baby to Putin being desperate for Xi's support, especially in the face of collapsing ad-hoc industries. However, certain serious analyzes indicate that part of the dedicated industry, which, in addition to suffering from strategic leadership and knowledge to ensure business continuity and even progress, also suffers from a lack of resources. Speculation goes so far that alternative sources are being used to procure these key pieces of technology that should ensure the completion of production of Russian super military technology.

One such speculation is that Kazakhstan has in recent months significantly increased its imports of washing machines that have a more sophisticated platform, because these machines contained chips that are necessary for the Russian military industry. Who knows where the truth is in all that, but one thing is clear, the pact-axis-alliance between Xi and Putin closes the "thirty-ninth" year (symbolic for the eve of the Second World War) and leads the world to the next - the bad. At the same time, Macron, wanting to assert himself as the leader of Europe, and to choose a better position for himself, promised to visit China next month. To the surprise of the Americans, Ursula von der Leyen will also accompany him, although it is not yet known for what - to keep Macron under control or to communicate directly to Xi the position of Europe (which he will say next week). Be that as it may, Europe's critics articulate the breakup with the new alliance announced by the countries of the North (Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) in the domain of military aviation which, according to the detractors, should be the beginning of mutual defense if the global West falls apart. Until then, criticism of French authoritarianism at home rumbles for now only in the Global South, while the liberal mainstream (conventional wisdom) is wisely silent on the "Tehranization" of Paris.

(The author is a university professor, associate professor at Arizona State University, USA)