AFTER THE BIDEN-PUTIN GENEVA SUMMIT: OF PRISONER’S DILEMMA AND CONFRONTATIONAL NOSTALGIA

             

Was the, with little expectations, but a lot of combinations and nervousness, awaited summit of the Presidents of America and Russia, a failure? 

It was not. 

And can it be described as a success, as a breakthrough from the winter of a renewed Cold War? 

Again – no! So what was this summit then, what – if anything – did the Geneva meeting bring?

It was an attempt that could not be written off as a complete failure, it was an indication that – as President Biden said – there is no alternative to face-to-face talks. 

And it was a hint of hope that the two great powers, one a superpower and the other much more than a regional power, as President Obama mockingly called it, might be able to set out to identify common interests and work together in those areas, as well as find ways and methods. to resolve what is in dispute in their relationship. 

Where we should not forget the saying  by Lev Tolstoj, quoted during his press conference by President Putin: “In life there is no hope, there is only a promise of hope.”

And it is that promise of hope, what we can call the only tangible result of the summit which lasted about three and a half hours, instead of the announced five to six.

Of course, this will fuel new speculations and different interpretations from those that Biden was tired and lost the concentration, to the one that the participants reached a deadlock but – not wanting to make things even worse, than they already are – simply stopped.

Of the concrete results, the world has learned only one, just one: two states are returning their ambassadors to their places: the Russian ambassador is returning to Washington, and the American to Moscow.

Everything else remained in the domain of what Biden defined, correcting one journalist who aggressively asked him: “And how can you be confident, that . . .?”

He said, namely: “I did not say  I’m confident, but we ‘ll see.”

And what we should see is the continuation of talks on the control and hopefully arms reduction (nuclear in the first place), the formation of a working group between the two countries that would deal with the cyber attacks, so-called hacking.

Then (and again the announcement!) the possibility of talks on the exchange of arrested American citizens in Russia, ie Russians in America, as well as the approach to the problem in Ukraine based on the agreement from Minsk (confirmed by both presidents!).

And what is particularly important: a joint effort to achieve strategic stability.

About this and only about this, not about the whole meeting, a joint statement by the two Presidents was published: “The extension of the New START agreement demonstrates our commitment to the control of nuclear weapons.

Today, we reaffirm the principle that nuclear war cannot be won and that it must never be fought . “It may not seem like much, but it is. Today, it is!    

Both sides agreed, and the two presidents held separate press conferences, that the talks took place in a constructive atmosphere and that there were no threats from either side. 

Putin described Biden as a sensible and experienced politician, and Biden skillfully avoided journalistic insistence on how he explained to Putin why he called him a killer : “My explanation was good enough for him and that’s enough for me.” 

On the other hand, the pragmatic Putin indirectly referred to Biden’s statement, quoted so many times, that, looking Putin in the eye at a previous meeting, he concluded that he had no soul. 

“We do not have to look each other into eyes, searching for the soul, nor do we have to make eternal friendship”, said Putin.

A confirmation that it was a summit convened with no great expectations is the fact that neither Putin invited Biden to Moscow, nor was Putin invited by Biden to Washington.

But, and again, even a little more than nothing, is much, especially when we take into account the circumstances in which the Geneva summit was held and all that happened in previous years.

Of course, the US side “recited” their compulsory program of complaints regarding Russia’s violations of human rights, including the statement that the deaths in jail of opposition leader Navalny would be “a disaster” for relations of the two countries.

In doing so, Biden went a little too far, arguing that the struggle for human rights is something that is part of the American being, “it’s us,” consciously forgetting that the United States from their beginnings until the sixtieth of the last century denied basic human rights, initially even freedom, to all its colored citizens, that the first unit composed of colored Americans enlisted in the U.S. Army only in World War II (but separately from whites) , and that cases of racial discrimination even today happen practically on daily basis.

Putin, as it could have been expected, used this at his press conference to counter every question related to the human rights in Russia (what was by CNN, not denying anything of what Putin said, proclaimed as a return to the methods of Soviet propaganda).

Too bad no one remembered to ask what the consequences would be and for whom if Julian Assange would die in jail.

Almost “under the radar” passed a significant concession made by the United States, ie the deviation from their previous position.

The intention (however, this is just the announcement) to form a working group of the two countries to deal with the cyber attacks means that in silence the accusations that such attacks were staged by Russia, the Russian secret services, and even Putin himself, were abandoned.

The atmosphere, not only the one in which the Geneva summit was held, but the one in the Western world, could be deduced the most from the behavior of journalists who were questioning the two presidents.

It is neither uninteresting nor unimportant to mention that American journalists could have been present at Putin’s press conference, while Russian journalists were banned from Biden’s. press conference.

But it was these American journalists who behaved at both press conferences like barking dogs (which is not to say anything bad about dogs). In their questions they insisted on confrontation, on the continuation of confrontation ( “Have you threatened to use military force ? “, was one of the questions to Biden).

One of the most evident examples of pre-prepared questions, no matter what, and certainly regardless of the facts, was the one about Russians demanding that journalists of Radio Liberty (the Russian version of Radio Free Europe) register as “foreign agents “.

Putin, namely, previously explained, and it is a matter of common knowledge to anyone who is familiar in the media scene, that it were the Americans who first demanded that Russian journalists in the United States register as foreign agents.

Then, and only then did Russia introduce the same for the American journalists working there.

But obviously it is true that what one can do, another cannot do. Along with the sad statement that a large part of the journalists in the West, consciously or not, accepted to be turned into a propaganda weapon of the ruling.

So it is not at all impossible that Biden, although “secured” by the presence of his experts, from the Secretary of State to the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as with a separate press conference, will experience in America something similar , albeit in a milder form, to what befell Trump after his talks with Putin in Helsinki. 

Obviously, there are strong forces in the United States (which then influence the behavior in the first place of the Atlantic Pact, but then the European Union too), which are not interested in peace and understanding, which base its existence on confrontation, on the existence of enemies. 

Real, or imaginary – it doesn’t matter. And obviously there is a propaganda apparatus that serves them. 

They simply cannot like Biden’s statement that his agenda is not against Russia, but for American people.

But if that statement becomes what will make the summit memorable (in the city of peace, as the Swiss president said while welcoming Biden and Putin), then it is entirely justified to say that the meeting, which was by no means spectacular, which lasted shorter than it was expected, which did not result in any key breakthroughs in any area, was not in vain. 

Because, if there is a President in the White House whose program is not to “work against Russia” and if Putin knows that now, then there is a chance that the world will move away from the edge of general chaos into which it is inevitably pushed by the worsening American-Russian relations. 

Then there is, as Tolstoy would say, a promise of hope.

 

 ***

By Tomislav Jakić, Author is one of the most influential Yugoslav and Croatian journalists, who is covering the international relations for over 50 years and who served as Foreign policy Advisor to Croatian President Stjepan Mesic (2000. – 2010.). The first superpowers summit that, Mr. Jakic personally covered was a Carter –Brezhnev meeting in Vienna 1979.

Published by The 21st Century

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of 21cir.

 

Sharing is caring!

Leave a Reply