An experiment with a summit. Biden adjusts the Russian course of the United States?

What did Joe Biden achieved by meeting with Vladimir Putin? Did you lose the civilized world? Smile or baton: what is more effective in communicating with Putin?

My interlocutors: historian and political scientist, professor at New School University in New York Nina Khrushcheva , historian Yuri Felstinsky and political scientist from Kansas University Maria Omelicheva .

Joe Biden unexpectedly, even for his supporters, decided to try to adjust the Russian course of the United States

Formally, the meeting of the American and Russian presidents ended virtually nothing. Presidents Biden and Putin agreed only to return the ambassadors to their jobs, more or less normalizing diplomatic contacts between the two countries. Informally, she gave rise to the experiment. After seven years of attempts to insulate the Kremlin, the buildings of sanctions, which the annexation of Russia has laid by Russia, Joe Biden, unexpectedly, even for his supporters, decided to try to adjust the Russian course of the United States. He proposed to start a dialogue with the Kremlin in order to maintain what the White House is called strategic stability, while preserving the sanctions and the threat of new punishments in response to the hostile actions of Russia. Apparently, President Biden listened to advisers who were afraid that the protracted confrontation between the two largest nuclear powers, the reduction of communications between the two governments is fraught with a too serious conflict.

What this initiative turns out, even President Biden does not begin to predict. He only hopes for the best, and analysts do not exclude that this step can lead to a deterioration in relations with Russia.

“As Biden said, we will learn about the results of this summit only after 6 months, maybe Nina Khrushcheva says. -I had a feeling that he went to the Summit with the thesis according to the Putin press conference: you do not go inside, all that is inside Russia is our business. And if you do not climb to us, then we will not climb to you. You have in 2022, choose who you want. We will try to be more accurate in international relations, even in some areas to cooperate. But at the same time, all that mine is all remains mine.

-That is, in your interpretation, Putin is unlikely to give in to something. What, in this case, does Joe Biden's phrase look about the “real prospect of a significant improvement in relations between our countries”, said by him during a press conference? You did not have the feeling that he has illusions regarding possible cooperation with Putin?

Vladimir Putin during a press conference after negotiations with Joe Bayden June 16, 2021

- I have no such impression. Yes, Putin denies cyber attacks. Have you ever seen that Putin recognizes cyber attacks? What did you expect from him? Of course, he denies, he will deny. It seems to me that Biden did not expect confessions from Putin in anything. Bayden is simple, I think, as a pragmatic, experienced person, probably told him that if something happens again, then the answer will be like that.

- Yes, Biden for the first time almost directly threatened the attack on the Russian oil infrastructure.

Biden seems to return to the formulas of the Soviet era in order to maintain strategic stability

- Absolutely. I think that he clearly gave Vladimir Putin to understand what the answers could be. Biden understands that he can only achieve very limited results in matters with Navalny, in matters of supporting human rights in Russia. This, in my opinion, was quite obvious. At the same time, Biden seems to return to the formulas of the Soviet era in order to maintain strategic stability. That is, we communicate and do not insult each other, we are dealing at the state level, and this can bring some results. Maybe it will not bring. Such tactics were used in relations with the Soviet Union. I think that for Putin this attitude, such behavior is important. Because all this meeting for him primarily meant that he was treated as a representative of a great power, he and the US president make decisions. He is now a real heir to traditions when American presidents meet and carry out large global security projects, because without them at least a flood. I think Biden is well aware that Putin will not change, he will remain Putin. They tried to ignore Putin since 2014, they all the time tried to tell him that you were bad, and did not talk to him. It got worse. Now we decided to talk. Maybe it will not become better, but this is the point to which, from my point of view, it was necessary to reach. And Biden is right that he did it. Then the thing will go or will not go - we do not know, but he did it.

- Can these gestures smoothly go into a new reboot?

- No, I don't think. Bayden, and I am not his huge fan, but that he is deprived of illusions about Russia - this is for sure. It is clear that in principle, Biden needs to be engaged in China so that Russia does not bite it for the heels with its misinformation in 2022 during the intermediate elections to Congress. Trump will now even divorce a huge buch: I am running for, I will be a speaker or I will not be a speaker. Trump needs Russia Today to circulate in a triple volume in his favor. No, I think that Biden came without any calculation of a reboot, because I am sure that he still thinks that Putin is a killer, he just does not tell him about it anymore.

In the reality, which is created for himself for the Russian audience, Vladimir Putin and pro -government media, negotiations with the US president, without a doubt, will be recorded as a major victory of Putin. The Western world sees a meeting of Russian and American presidents in another light. But the idea of President Biden, unexpected for many observers, conduct a summit with President Putin testifies to the difficulties that Washington faces in an attempt to find effective tools in order to ugly the Kremlin, especially when no one wants, roughly speaking, to fight with Moscow in terms of Western capitals, reasons. This is the opinion of Yuri Felshtinsky:

Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin at a summit in Geneva

“I think that from the point of view of Biden and from the point of view of Putin, this meeting was successful and was successful,” says Yuri Felstinsky . - From the point of view of Putin, because after Baiden called him a killer, we saw the handshake of Biden and Putin, and Baiden first extended his hand and a smile. You can, of course, believe that all these are gestures of politeness and diplomacy, but nevertheless. In addition, it seems to me that it is very important that after Bayden called Putin the killer, after the Russian ambassador was withdrawn, the American ambassador left Moscow, the rest of the United States allies took it as a signal, that Putin became miserable, which, perhaps, should not meet with him. I must add that, from my point of view, for Putin this is the most terrible and most humiliating punishment. I think that this is the only weapon that remains at the disposal of the civilized world - to stop shaving a hand. Therefore, the fact that this situation arose, on the one hand, was like a very serious blow to Putin’s regime, and the fact that Bayden now with his own hands the same situation that he created, eliminated and returned to a certain status quo, in fact, of course, is also a signal for all the other allies of the United States, which, in fact, can begin to meet with Putin again, to start his hand again, invite him again For a common table and so on. In this regard, this, of course, is Putin’s victory.

- Well, what is Biden's victory?

Biden flew to Geneva in order to say that he still considers Putin a killer

- We must not forget that the last point of counting at the highest level between the President of the United States and the President of Russia is the meeting of Trump and Putin in Helsinki. I think that it is very important to understand the following: Trump flew to Helsinki in order to tell Putin that he generally supports his point of view on the events, in this sense Putin can continue to do everything exactly the same way. Putin, in fact, behaved so. Bayden flew to Geneva in order to say that he still considers Putin a killer. Please note that during the answers to the questions of journalists, Putin has never denied that statement, he did not say: I am not a killer. He said: aren't you killing? Putin’s protective line was not that all the accusations that are personally put forward against me are unfair, but that you are doing the same. Bayden flew to Geneva in order to tell Putin that he understands who he was and that he, Biden designed the interests of the United States. The starting position is now a little different, it is not the one that was after Helsinki. Regardless of whether Biden can change Putin’s behavior and turn the situations, but nevertheless, the starting positions, the original understanding of what Putin is and what is happening in Russia, it seems to me that today are more correct and in this sense more healthy for us all that has occurred in the past 4–5 years.

-What do you think, is a kind of third path that the so-called American analysts-realists, and which President Biden, is possible in relations with Russia, is possible in relations with Russia, that is, not friendship, not enmity, but something else: business relations, cooperation on central issues, coupled with tough criticism, pressure, and sanctions in response to the enemy actions of Russia? Or is it an artificial concept?

-We do not have the opportunity to make Putin do something. This will require completely hard steps, after which only war can follow. I do not think that someone is ready to go for this, and it is not obvious, which would be reasonable in the interests of the world and humanity to do so. I do not think that we have many opportunities for cooperation with Putin. It is clear that everyone calls global warming, Iranian nuclear project, Syria, and international terrorism. Between us, all these topics do not care at all seriously either Putin or the United States in relation to Russia. That is, these are secondary issues that can be discussed. Our paramount problem in relation to Russia lies in the fact that, firstly, Russia is the main destabilizing and threatening factor in Europe, primarily for Eastern Europe. This was demonstrated by the example of the invasion of Georgia and on the example of the invasion of Ukraine. Secondly, Russia, as we have already seen with examples of interference in the 2016 elections and the 2020 elections in the United States, is now the main destabilizing factor for the United States. I still do not mention cyber attacks in which, as Putin has repeatedly said, there is no evidence of Russia's direct participation. Presidential election in Europe is an unconditional fact, and we have a lot of evidence of this. Russia, of course, is engaged in a hybrid war, let’s say, with respect to the entire democratic world, since it considers it permissible for herself and practically possible to do this for herself.

-And the United States for some reason could not stop her. Do you think that Biden’s approach will be more effective: for now, one can say, persuasion, an attempt to appeal to common sense along with warnings?

The fact that Baiden held out his hand, he greatly weakened the position of the civilized world against the Putin regime

- As long as this happens, I do not see ways to influence Putin and a serious conversation with Putin. Because here it turns out a very controversial moment: in order to influence Putin, you need to put pressure on Putin, and every time we press on Putin, he perceives this, perhaps, sincerely, from his point of view, as an obvious threat and as evidence that he needs to continue to destroy the Western world. How to solve this problem, I personally do not know. Just the disconnection of Putin’s hand and the refusal that he has the right to sit at a common table is the cheapest and most effective way to tell Putin that he must change his behavior. Unfortunately, by the fact that Baiden held out his hand and smiled after he called him a killer, he greatly weakened the position of a civilized world against the Putin regime.

Symbolically holding out his hand to Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden went to the experiment with obvious serious chances of failure, acting in the spirit of traditional American ideas about international relations. These ideas diverge greatly with Russian ideas. However, there is a hope that Biden’s approach will help to dispel traditional Kremlin fears and fears regarding the American and Western threats, says Maria Omelicheva:

- Maria, why do you think Joe Biden suggested holding a summit with Putin?

“Two hypotheses,” says Maria Omelicheva . - One hypothesis concerns Biden's personal characteristics. He is a very experienced politician, he made his political career mainly due to the ability to build relationships with critics. Personal relationships are very important to Biden, because it helped him advance his policy. The second hypothesis concerns American strategic culture. This is a culture of consent, it is a culture of diplomacy, it is a culture of negotiations. Very often, Americans extend this logic to the logic of the actions of other states, and then somehow disappointed. That is, according to this logic, if there is not enough diplomacy between Russia and the United States, let's bring more diplomacy, and this should somehow result in positive results. As we have already seen repeatedly, such expectations are very often not met. Russia can even interpret this logic in its favor as the Slabin of the United States, as the concessions of the United States of Russia. Of course, it plays in the hands of Putin's regime in Russia.

- Do you think President Biden made a mistake by initiating this summit? Washington Post calls the mistake that Biden is ready to believe Putin.

- The media love to embellish. I don't think Biden trusts Putin. We know that he threatened Russia with a serious answer if Russia continues cyber attacks on the critical infrastructure of the United States. That is, he set the red lines, set the boundaries of the patience of Russian behavior in relation to the United States. The changes occurred rhetorically, but if we look at the practical side of the United States’s foreign policy in relation to Russia, the United States still support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, we know that Zelensky will come to the White House in July. For all the main key moments of relations between Russia and the United States, Biden’s policy is, in principle, very similar to the policy of the Trump administration.

-By the way, it is symbolic that Putin was still not invited to the White House.

Summit "Big Seven"

- Yes, this is also very symbolic. That the summit was in conclusion of Tour Biden in Europe, before he met with Putin, he held numerous meetings with NATO members and other countries of the European Union and Great Britain. This is his emphasis on building friendly relations with members of alliances.

- It is not surprising that the Russian media present this summit as Putin’s victory. If he really made such a feeling from this meeting and act as a winner, then this promises the United States new problems.

- I think it all reduces tension. Because Russia very often moves a sense of unsafe. They believe that the United States want a coup in Russia or that NATO is still promoting a deterrent policy against Russia. This symbolism, the so -called victory of Putin at this meeting, it helps to reduce fear, reduce psychological stress in the Kremlin, disperse a sense of threat from the United States. This is all very important. Therefore, I believe that the symbolic side of the meeting also plays a very important role, if not in improvement, then some normalization of the relationship between Washington and Moscow.

- If you are right, then the situation is really hopeless. According to this logic, in order to reassure Putin, the West, figuratively speaking, needs to lay down all the weapons, but any sign of weakness, as experience shows, causes Putin to use it.

- It all depends on what theory of international relations analysts adhere to. There is a realist club, these are those who believe that Russian foreign policy is under their basis. Russia does everything in order to protect the country and regime from all kinds of threats from NATO, from the United States and so on. Other analysts proceed from the fact that Russia has imperial sentiments in the blood, Russia will never calm down, will always try to attack, forcefully attract the territories of nearby states. It all comes down in the end to how we interpret Russia's motivation in foreign policy. Я, как исследователь, больше склоняюсь к позиции реалистов, которые говорят, что, да, успокоить Россию – это хорошо, потому что Россия очень часто реагирует на то, что она воспринимает как угрозу режиму, как угрозу национальной безопасности.

– В таком случае, если Путин лишь обороняется, то его соседям, не имеющим агрессивных планов, казалось бы, нечего его опасаться. Однако попробуйте в этом убедить, скажем, страны Балтии.

Уважение российских интересов несопоставимо с интересами, с ценностями, с принципами внешней политики Соединенных Штатов

– Мне кажется, Путина надо опасаться, осторожно относиться к тому, что Россия может сделать. Необходимо осознавать, что корень проблем во взаимоотношениях между Москвой и Вашингтоном лежит в том, что на фундаментальном уровне эти страны имеют совершенно разные, очень часто конфликтующие интересы. Эти интересы очень часто достигаются различными тоже конфликтующими способами и методами. Это две страны, которые принципиально разнятся, у этих стран различные системы ценностей, принципов. Эти страны очень сильно расходятся в оценке того, какая международная структура может привести к конфликту, какая обеспечивает мир. Эти противоречия очень тяжело преодолеть. Поэтому ответа на вопрос, можно ли нормализировать взаимоотношения с Россией, по сути нет. Это сделать очень сложно, потому что Путин говорит, что мы нормализируем отношения, если Соединенные Штаты научатся уважать российские интересы. Но российские интересы очень отличаются от американских интересов. Уважение российских интересов будет принципиально несопоставимо с интересами, с ценностями, с принципами внешней политики Соединенных Штатов.