A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.

White House spokeswoman Karina Jean-Pierre denied a report in the U.S. media on the 8th that President Joseph Biden did not receive treatment for Parkinson's disease. Biden had the first televised debate of the 2024 presidential election with Republican opponent Donald Trump on June 27, and his poor performance on the spot triggered discussions about his physical condition. The New York Times reported that a doctor specializing in the treatment of Parkinson's disease had "visited" the White House eight times from August last year to March this year. Facing the media's questions about Biden's health, Jean-Pierre asked and answered himself at a regular White House press conference on the 8th: "Has the president received treatment for Parkinson's disease? No. Is he currently receiving treatment for Parkinson's disease? No, he is not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's disease? No." Jean-Pierre said Biden had seen a neurologist three times, all related to his annual physical examination. She also took out the report issued by the doctor after Biden's most recent physical examination in February this year. The report said, "An extremely detailed neurological examination was once again reassuring" because no symptoms consistent with stroke, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease were found. The doctor who went to the White House mentioned by the New York Times is Kevin Kanal, a neurology and movement disorder expert at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland and an authority on Parkinson's disease. Jean-Pierre suggested that the doctor might have come to treat military personnel on duty at the White House.

BEIRUT/JERUSALEM July 3 (Reuters) - An Israeli strike killed one of Hezbollah's top commanders in south Lebanon on Wednesday, prompting retaliatory rocket fire by the Iran-backed group into Israel as their dangerously poised conflict rumbled on. The Israeli military said it had struck and eliminated Hezbollah's Mohammed Nasser, calling him commander of a unit responsible for firing from southwestern Lebanon at Israel. Nasser, killed by an airstrike near the city of Tyre in southern Lebanon, was the one of the most senior Hezbollah commanders to die yet in the conflict, two security sources in Lebanon said. Sparked by the Gaza war, the hostilities have raised concerns about a wider and ruinous conflict between the heavily armed adversaries, prompting U.S. diplomatic efforts aimed at deescalation. Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said Israeli forces were hitting Hezbollah "very hard every day" and will be ready to take any action necessary against the group, though the preference is to reach a negotiated arrangement. Hezbollah began firing at Israeli targets at the border after its Palestinian ally Hamas launched the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, declaring support for the Palestinians and saying it would cease fire when Israel stops its Gaza offensive. Hezbollah announced at least two attacks in response to what it called "the assassination", saying it launched 100 Katyusha rockets at an Israeli military base and its Iranian-made Falaq missiles at another base in the town of Kiryat Shmona near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israel's Channel 12 broadcaster reported that dozens of rockets were fired into northern Israel from Lebanon. There were no reports of casualties. The Israeli Defence Ministry said that air raid sirens sounded in several parts of northern Israel. Israel's military did not give a number of rockets launched but said most of them fell in open areas, some were intercepted, while a number of launches fell in the area of Kiryat Shmona.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared at the Munich Security Conference: "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." The arrogant thinking of American political elites is evident: Whoever does not comply with the US will be excluded from the table of the American-led system and put on the menu. How arrogant. The US is actively pushing for "decoupling" from China and trying to persuade the entire West to "decouple" from China, using the term "de-risking." Washington hopes to ultimately contain China's development in order to maintain American hegemony. However, this time, Washington is facing a historically experienced and strategically rich Eastern civilization. Previous opponents targeted by the US have chosen to confront the US strategically. The US not only has the strongest technological and military capabilities but also controls global financial and information networks with a large number of allies. Those countries that had engaged in direct confrontations had suffered losses. Some of them had disintegrated, some had been weakened, and some had fallen into difficulties. However, what Washington sees from China is strategic composure and resilience. China is now staging an unprecedented and grand "Tai Chi." However, some Chinese people feel that this is not enough: Why can't we confront the US head-on? But I want to say that this is precisely the brilliance of China. This grand "Tai Chi" is about dismantling the pressure the US is putting on China. Europe is different from the US. A European diplomat once said in private that the topic of China has become toxic in the US, but in Europe, it is still possible to openly display friendliness toward China. There is genuine competition between the Europe and China despite Europe leans more toward the US between China and the US. Only in terms of ideology does the term "West" truly exist. In terms of fundamental economic interests, Europe has considerable independence. In terms of security, their attitude toward China also differs greatly from that of the US. In the Asia-Pacific region or China's periphery, the US wants to create an "Asian NATO." The specific situations of countries in dispute with China are very different. China has enormous influence in the region, is the largest trading partner of the vast majority of countries in the region and has friendly relations with most countries in the region. The disputes with countries are not fundamental strategic conflicts, and China has the ability to manage disputes with each specific country and push them to move toward neutrality to varying degrees without being tied to the US' policy toward China. China has a lot of trading partners and stakeholders in the US. The trade volume between China and the US, despite the decline, reached $664.4 billion in 2023, which shows China's huge presence in the US, and is the bond of the two countries in the current situation. The US is not a country where the political elites can have absolute say, and the huge interests have forced the US president and senior officials to repeatedly proclaim that they "don't want to decouple from China" and instead they want to "manage the US-China competition" and see "preventing a war with China" as clearly in everyone's best interest. China should engage in a "strategic battle" with the US at the closest possible distance. We need to maintain friendly relations with certain forces within the US, speed up the resumption of flights between the two countries, increase personnel exchanges and completely reverse the downturn of China-US contacts during the pandemic. In addition to the above dismantling, we also have the huge increment in the "Belt and Road." This initiative will increase China's power to compete with the US, greatly extending the front line that the US needs to maintain in containing China, making the US more powerless. In order to dismantle the US strategy toward China, China must become more diversified while maintaining strategic consistency. Our national diplomacy toward the US is very principled, rational and determined, which is clearly different from other countries targeted by the US. Our public diplomacy toward the US needs to be unique, with both "anti-American voices" and efforts to maintain friendly relations between the two societies and further expand economic and practical cooperation with the US. Just as eagles have their own way of flying and doves have their own formation, just as we see the US as complex, China must also be seen as complex in the eyes of the US. China is both a geopolitical concern and a profitable investment destination for them, and is one of the largest trading partners that is difficult to replace. Some American political elites proclaim China as an "enemy," but it is important to make the majority of Americans feel that China is not. No matter how intense the struggles between China and the US may be, we cannot shape the entire US toward an enemy direction. China has to make the US political elites recognize that it is futile to deal with China in the same way as it historically dealt with the Soviet Union and other major powers. Furthermore, willingly or unwillingly, coexistence and cooperation with China will be their only choice.

Carlsberg to buy Britvic for 1,315p per share Carlsberg will also buy out Marston's from brewing joint venture Danish brewer plans to create integrated beverage business in UK Shares in Carlsberg, Britvic, Marston's all rise July 8 (Reuters) - Carlsberg (CARLb.CO), opens new tab has agreed to buy British soft drinks maker Britvic (BVIC.L), opens new tab for 3.3 billion pounds ($4.23 billion), a move the Danish brewer said would forge a UK beverage "powerhouse" and that sent both companies' shares higher. Carlsberg clinched the takeover with a sweetened bid of 1,315 pence per share - comprising cash and a special dividend of 25 pence a share - after the British company rejected 1,250 pence per share last month. The acquisition will create value for shareholders, contribute to growth and forge a combined beer and soft drink company that is unique in the UK, CEO Jacob Aarup-Andersen told investors on a conference call. "With this transaction we are creating a UK powerhouse," he said. He brushed off concerns from some analysts about integration risks, saying Carlsberg has a strong track record of running beer and soft drink businesses in several markets. Soft drinks already make up 16% of Carlsberg's volumes. COST SAVINGS As drinkers in some markets ditch beer for spirits or cut back on drinking altogether, brewers have looked to broaden their portfolio into new categories like hard seltzer, canned cocktails and cider, as well as zero-alcohol brews. Britvic sells non-alcoholic drinks in Britain, Ireland, Brazil and other international markets such as France, the Middle East and Asia. Carlsberg said the deal will deliver a number of benefits, including cost and efficiency savings worth 100 million pounds ($128 million) over five years as it takes advantage of common procurement, production and distribution networks. It will also see Carlsberg take over Britvic's bottling agreement with PepsiCo (PEP.O), opens new tab. Carlsberg already bottles PepsiCo drinks in several markets and there is scope to add more geographies in future, Aarup-Andersen said. arlsberg halted share buy backs on Monday as a result of the deal. Chief financial officer Ulrica Fearn said these would resume once Carlsberg reaches its revised target for net debt of 2.5 times EBITDA, from 3.5 times currently - a goal it expects to meet in 2027. "Whilst this represents a shift in the strategy away from organic top- and bottom-line growth and consistent returns to shareholders, we view it as a relatively low risk transaction with attractive financials," Jefferies analysts said in a note. Carlsberg also said on Monday it will buy out UK pub group Marston's (MARS.L), opens new tab from a joint venture for 206 million pounds. That will give it full ownership of the newly formed Carlsberg Britvic after the deal. ($1 = 0.7805 pounds) Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here. Reporting by Stine Jacobsen, Yadarisa Shabong and Emma Rumney Editing by Sherry Jacob-Phillips, Rashmi Aich, David Goodman and David Evans