Why Biden is pushing for a meeting with Putin

Joseph Biden, the 46th president of the United States, is asking Russian President Vladimir Putin for a meeting for the second time in six months

Why Biden is pushing for a meeting with Putin
This would not be surprising: International tensions have finally reached their peak and not only the most alarmist of experts, but also the most cautious among politicians, have started talking about the high likelihood of war.

Under such circumstances, the responsible leaders of the great powers are bound to meet and seek compromise.

But this is the same Biden whose team cried all the tears over Russian meddling in the American election and twice tried to organize the impeachment of the 45th President of the United States Donald Trump, accusing the latter of surrendering to Russian interests and working for Putin. Meanwhile, Putin and Trump had only one full-length meeting (in Helsinki on 16 July 2018, a year and a half before Trump’s term expired) and the rest was about five short conversations “on the margins” of various summits.

Relations between Russia and the US had already sunk to freezing point before Trump. That said, the 45th American president, although negotiating harder, was much more constructive than the 46th. Trump was inclined to compromise, despite all contradictions, because only a mutually acceptable compromise can ensure a long and lasting peace.

Biden, in typical American fashion, is trying to deceive his negotiating partner by seeking only a truce – a postponement of the confrontation for some time, during which the US will try to solve its problems so that later it can get back to business as usual.

This is why Biden’s team is begging for meetings with Putin, as if their ancient chief is afraid of dying without saying something important to Vladimir Vladimirovich. Note the diplomatic activity of an American president who does not always perceive reality adequately during his first year in office:
– spring – the intensification of the US-European alliance, the attempt to force the EU to make a sharp deterioration in relations with Russia and to abandon NSP2;
– summer – sudden request for a meeting with Putin, insistence on its rapid organization, declared readiness for a settlement on the whole range of disputed issues. In reality, hints that the U.S. is prepared not to intervene if the Kremlin decides to restore its exclusive sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space by force, so that, in return, Russia will give up its informal (but very problematic for the U.S.) alliance with China. The rest of the summer is devoted to spreading the disinformation that Moscow is ready to negotiate with the US at Beijing’s expense;
– autumn – the forging of an anti-Chinese alliance of US vassals in the Asia-Pacific region and some European powers, followed by a sharp and insistent desire to arrange a personal meeting between Xi Jinping and Biden (the meeting took place, wasted time, after which the US began to spread disinformation that Beijing was ready to negotiate with Washington at Moscow’s expense);
– winter – against the background of the sharp deterioration of the situation on the Russian-Belarusian border that began in the autumn and the blatant attempt to draw Russia into a war involving the Eastern European members of NATO and the EU, a new insistence on a face-to-face meeting with Putin.

In my opinion, it does not take a distinguished intellect to see the ‘seesaw’ in which the US is trying to ‘swing’ Russia and China to break up their partnership (absolutely nullifying any attempt by the US to reclaim its status as global hegemon) and crush Moscow and Beijing one by one and one by one. The U.S. offers everyone something unnecessary, but seriously tying their hands and requiring large resource costs; they try to bind everyone with a regional war with their allies (who, however, are in no hurry to pull chestnuts out of the fire for Washington); everyone is led to believe that their partner has almost agreed to the American offer and they should hurry to negotiate themselves in order not to be left foolish.
The method is straightforward, has been used since ancient times and has often been successful. The US understands that neither Russia nor China want to win and annex post-Soviet territories in Europe and Taiwan (respectively) right now.

Moscow and Beijing would prefer to solve these problems peacefully and later. At this stage, the overtly expressed intention to reclaim the fallen imperial territories may not only limit the possibilities for Russia and China to cooperate in repelling the US military-political and financial-economic pressure, but also undermine the entire system of Eurasian alliances that they have built.

Therefore, the U.S., in order to induce Russia and China to make concessions in the negotiations, is scaring both of them with an unnecessary regional war, while offering to negotiate and solve the problem. If anyone weakens and at least begins to discuss options, Washington will immediately provide evidence of leaks in order to induce the second partner to concede, and then bargain with both to bring down the price.

Understanding all this, the Russian leadership is in no hurry to talk to Biden. Peskov, on behalf of the Kremlin, said that the exact date has not yet been set. However, the Kremlin has agreed in principle to arrange a video conference by the end of the year. Why did they do it this way?

Every month (not to say a year) without a war strengthens Russia and China and weakens the US. If we hold out for two or three years, the war will become senseless for the US, because, by their own admission, after 2024 they do not see the possibility of defeating China militarily. Consequently, after two years the opportunities for U.S. blackmail will decrease dramatically. America’s allies, who are already unwilling to risk themselves over Washington’s games, will become even more thoughtful and will be even more difficult to induce them to take demonstrative aggressive action against Moscow and Beijing. The U.S.-determined deadline is approaching; we must act now. Under these circumstances, Washington, having lost hope of getting its way in peace, may indeed bet on provoking war.

Any negotiations are a way of stalling for time. As long as they are being prepared and as long as they are under way, it is not beneficial for the US to be unconstructive, which means it will try to keep its allies on a short leash. But vassal states are not trained dogs that can be sicced or pacified in a second; it takes time (albeit not much time) to shake things up. The solution is obvious: procrastinate as long as possible in fixing a date for negotiations and then postpone them to a later date. Once that is no longer possible, negotiate and, without giving any room for interpretation of the outcome as a willingness to take seriously the US offer to surrender an ally, drag the US into preparing for the next meeting by creating permanent expert groups by subject matter.

Any diplomatic office is a complex bureaucratic machine that is extremely difficult to make move simultaneously in two directions. If the task is to make diplomatic preparations for war, it will move in one direction; if the task is to find a compromise, it will move in the other. At the same time it will have a serious informational impact on both the international and domestic agendas. That is to say, even the regular meetings of experts, while meaningless, reduce (though not completely eliminate) the risk of fatal confrontation.

Russia’s actions demonstrate that the Kremlin clearly sees the threat and has chosen the right tactics. The agreement to set up expert groups was reached during the first meeting with Biden, which was held as long as it was possible. It is true that America countered this agreement by the fact that the expert groups never got off the ground. So now the Russian diplomats will point this out and demand more constructiveness.

The current meeting is also delayed as much as they can, having already postponed it until the end of December. If it succeeds, under the pretext of the New Year holidays, it will be postponed until mid- to late January (which is unlikely, since the US is in a hurry). The current meeting will take place online: the coronavirus. Although it does not interfere with meetings between Putin and Biden and other politicians, in this case it is online only. And not because one does not want to waste time on flights, knowing in advance that the talks will go to waste. The online mode does not allow for fake leaks about the content of the negotiations. It is not a face-to-face meeting (in presence of only unidentified and monitored translators, in a bugged office) – everything is being recorded, and by both sides.

This is Russia’s way of trying to win a month and a half or two of the 48 months needed. Will it be able to win the whole world?

This question does not have an unequivocal answer. On the one hand, time is running out and as 2024 approaches, the USA has nothing to lose, and the vassal countries they have their own war parties, which (for personal gain) are ready to start even a knowingly losing war that destroys their states. On the other hand, the incumbent authorities, now in charge of American expendables, are doing their best to get rid of the honourable mission of needlessly dying for US interests. To what extent do they have the stamina to continue maneuvering on the brink of a foul? How willing are the Americans to increase the pressure on the dependent elites of the Limitrophs? Where is the weakest link ready to break: in Europe or in Asia, and who is it (Ukraine, Taiwan, someone else)? We can only speculate with more or less certainty.

Often the expected danger comes from places where it is not expected or when one has given up waiting and relaxed.

Rostislav Ischenko, Ukraina.ru


comments powered by HyperComments