Biden had to confirm the United States' leading role worldwide after fleeing Afghanistan. But the State Department, for want of a better response, split the world in half, cutting off America's obvious detractors so as to place the remaining 111 leaders from all the continents under its patronage.

However, although remarks from several dozen heads of state were scheduled by the State Department, even the Washington press expressed a concerted resentment to the event, which put a lot of readers at stand. They saw the headlines and did not understand why Biden's "super-democratic" summit was assessed by leading outlets in such an uncommon way.

Well, how can one comprehend anything from such headlines: Biden Rallies Global Democracies as U.S. Hits a "Rough Patch" (New York Times), Biden’s "Summit for Democracy" Includes Countries that Hardly Seem to Qualify (Washington Post), Joe Biden’s Democracy Summit Is the Height of Hypocrisy (Time), Joe Biden's Summit for Democracy is not so Democratic (Economist). At the same time, if you google the "summit for democracy" phrase, the news will be as scarce as hen's teeth. Just a few publications...

Nevertheless, Biden himself looked dashing. After negotiations with Vladimir Putin, when he was solving fundamental issues of world politics, the US president held a conversation with his junior partners from a previously chosen circle. Biden sat (pictured) alone against hundreds of presidents and prime ministers, whose selection raised issues even with US nuts-and-bolts journalists: the President invited even those whom the United States itself accused of undemocratic behavior (Pakistan and the Philippines), but failed to engage EU's Hungary and NATO's Turkey. For some reason Blinken invited Kosovo, which is nowhere near democracy and is ruled by former thugs of the Yugoslav war. And the appearance of Taiwan among the participants will simply aggravate Washington's ties with Beijing, which also won't heighten the State Department's diplomatic authority, as it has to understand what initiatives of this kind may entail.

But Biden was beaming: "Well, hello everyone, and welcome to the first Summit for Democracy. This gathering has been on my mind for a long time for a simple reason: In the face of sustained and alarming challenges to democracy, universal human rights, and – all around the world, democracy needs champions. And I wanted to host this summit because here is the – here in the United States, we know as well as anyone that renewing our democracy and strengthening our democratic institutions requires constant effort. American democracy is an ongoing struggle to live up to our highest ideal."

The audience apparently expected that this set of vulgar and empty clichés would be followed by a course of action with a weighty budget to rely on, for the sake of democratic change. However, the proclaimed budget turned out scanty, and they kept listening to the President's stream of verbalized consciousness: "Democracy – government of the people, by the people, for the people – can at times be fragile, but it also is inherently resilient. It’s capable of self-correction and it’s capable of self-improvement. And, yes, democracy is hard. We all know that. It works best with consensus and cooperation. When people and parties that might have opposing views sit down and find ways to work together, things begin to work. But it’s the best way to unleash human potential and defend human dignity and solve big problems. And it’s up to us to prove that. We have to stand for justice and the rule of law, for free speech, free assembly, a free press, freedom of religion, and for all the inherent human rights of every individual."

People were listening and waiting for the budget of the "Joe Biden global program for the promotion, protection and preservation of democracy" to be discussed. Tensions on the screen were growing.

And finally it happened! The audience tensed up, and POTUS made a grand gesture: "Working with our Congress, we’re planning to commit as much as... (here, those present held their breath) $224 million (those present did not understand the joke abstained from asking to repeat) in the next year to shore up transparent and accountable governance, including supporting media freedom, fighting international corruption, standing with democratic reformers..."

Catharsis! A 224-million bone is thrown to 111 countries of the world to let them strengthen democracy! Wow, two mil per state! That's it. Dim the lights, the show is over! Now it is clear why the mainstream media is silent – nothing to write about, nothing to discuss...

Shrugging her shoulders, Annie Boyajian from Freedom House said this event could stir struggling democracies into action and stimulate coordination between democratic governments, "but a full assessment won't be possible until we know what commitments there are and how they are implemented in the year ahead." Good talk and nothing else? No obligations or program?

Moreover, Freedom House says over 30% of the 110 invited countries are only "partially free". And three participants in the summit are generally "not free", comprising Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Iraq. And over a dozen of others are classified as "electoral autocracies" by the Swedish V-Dem institute. Those include the Philippines, Kenya and India (Modi should remember this, especially after his excellent negotiations with Putin). Yes, the State Department's selection of guests appears far out. It's as if Blinken either didn't understand his assignment or wanted to set his boss up with such a format and meaningless testimony.

So why did Time magazine write that "the Summit for Democracy is a geopolitical ploy"? The answer follows further in the text: this is "the height of hypocrisy" and "there is no global contest between democracy and autocracy. The struggle is entirely internal and it’s silly to pretend otherwise." The magazine emphasizes: "Globally, the share of individuals who say they are 'dissatisfied' with democracy has jumped from 47.9% in the mid-1990s to 57.5% – 'the highest level of democratic discontent on record', finds a study by the University of Cambridge based on a data set of more than 4 million people across 154 countries," Time writes.

And now the wider get-together of insiders is over. Biden has already wished to gather a more specific claque next year – it is clear that if they get no money or a mere handout today, next time many will refuse to engage. And the very idea of convening another "summit of democracies" may also fade away quietly, like it was in the Soviet Union when they stopped holding World Congress of Peace Forces, when the money ran out...