Biden operates within the constraints which he'd earlier enforced
MICIMATT's middle M is the middle finger
Having listened to Dmitry Babich's interview with Regis Tremblay I have changed my mind, and decided to listen to the post summit press conference by USA President Biden. I was quite surprised by how I ended up viewing that interview.
Babich
Regarding the Babich interview (see sources), he makes many interesting points, and some I found quite insightful. Actually, I think I'm improving my analysis bit by bit as I listen to the collection of analysts I have been referencing. Babich's great point was to look not at the conference, which is largely a media event, but what came before it. He sights paragraph 55 of the recent NATO Communique of which I'll quote the first sentence:
China's stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security.
Babich makes a number of points off this, one of which I'll restate and others of which I've mentioned before. His big call is that this is, essentially, a declaration of war against China because of the use of the term "systemic challenges". I think the last time that the US Congress declared war on anyone was WWII. Since then, the US just does war. The next point is the trope of "rules-based international order" which is code for "we do what we want". Instead it could refer to international law as produced in the UN, but nah, don’t annoy us with that. This is interesting because as I have mentioned the UN was created/conceived by the US with its allies during WWII, but now they no longer have use for it. I suspect this is because both of the current "adversaries" China and Russia have a veto on the UN Security Council.
Babich's next point, which caused me to wish to look into the Biden press conference, was that Biden has to pander to certain sections of local US politics and was visibly frustrated by a very stupid question. Really? So, they weren’t all scripted ...
Biden
It is worth noting that Russian President Putin has already delivered his 1 hour press conference which Biden's team will certainly have watched and prepared summary information of it for Biden. Additionally, Putin does not begin with any extended remarks but moves straight to questions, whereas Biden gave an 11 minute introductory statement.
Now, for all those "he's got dementia ..." people. Grow up. He's an old man, and that’s what happens, and it is not amusing. But, his remarks, when taken with an understanding that he has a domestic politics to speak to, and an understanding that what he says will be parsed by world diplomatic services, could be considered as careful and optimistic, even.
Here are what I consider the important points. I will omit things he said which I believe are purely for domestic politics, because these are irrelevant to the intergovernmental relationships which this summit was trying to improve.
“There is no substitute for face to face meetings”
“We should be able to cooperate where its in our mutual interest”
“I told President Putin that my agenda is not against Russia or anyone else but for the american people”
He goes on the Human Rights rant which is purely local domestic, but concedes "we haven't always lived up to them, but have always widened the arc"
"basic rules for the road that we can all abide by"
"strategic stability". "We discussed in detail that next steps our countries can take on arms control measures. The steps we need to take to reduce the risk of unintended conflict." He continues that they discussed in detail recent developments in weaponry that reduce the time of response and increase risks.
On cyber security Biden is quite precise "Responsible countries need to take action against criminals who conduct ransomware activity on [within] their territory."
"How it is in both the interests of the US and Russia that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons"
"And to how we can ensure that the Arctic remains a region of cooperation rather than conflict"
US reaffirms territorial integrity of Ukraine and "We agreed to pursue diplomacy related to the Minsk agreement"
"The tone of the entire meetings ... was good, positive ..." Disagreements were stated "but it was not done in a hyperbolic atmosphere". "That is too much of what has been going on".
I am softening on Biden. I do not disavow that he is a political operative and has his fingers in some of the worst things the US has done (Crime Bill, PATRIOT Act, War on Iraq), but he is no longer a Senator from Delaware, but an aging man who is the US President. He understands the limitations under which he operates because he has been a part of those for decades. President Putin understands this, President Biden understands this, and I think we should too.
Analysis
I have some comments about what Biden said which I have noted above, in corresponding order:
“face to face”: This is historically obvious, but the subtext is that I get all of my "advisors" out of my face and the same is true with my interlocutor and we can actually talk. I can imagine that if this really was the idea, as I expect it was, and that there was a pre-agreed list of discussion points, if the two foreign ministers tried to interrupt there would have been rather harsh looks. Shut up, I want to hear what he has to say, and you should listen too.
“cooperate on mutual interest”: The key word is "should". This is a reference to the various obstacles that face political leaders from their own local political environment.
This is a direct echo of what President Putin has been saying. I represent the peoples of Russia. Putin will understand what is being said, even if the US media does not.
The human rights rant is mandated, and I expect that Biden actually believes a lot of it whilst still ignoring extra-judicial drone killings and illegal wars of aggression, not to mention collective punishment via unilateral sanctions. But, he makes that one admission "we haven't always ...". I have no idea why its there, but it is interesting.
The "rules for the road" comment is doing a few things, it echoes the "rules based international yada yada" and echoes his desire for "stability and predictability". The key word is "all". I imagine that Putin's response would have been "international law as approved by the UN, please use that term".
The whole "stategic stability" thing is very important because as Biden acknowledges there are new weapons systems (read hypersonic missiles and drone nuclear armed submarines) which reduce the ability of political leaders to stop their military executing automatic response plans. He also admits that this was top of his list for discussion. Good on him for this. I fully expect that the US military leadership had a strong hand in this too. Good on them also!
On Cyber Security, the use of the term "criminal" is very important. Russia knows that various criminal networks operating in Russia, but also Ukraine and other neighbors are doing these things (ransomware) and the criminals have set rules which say you can’t go after Russian targets. Thus, they are being permitted to act, but are not coordinated by Russia in any official manner. Russia has been calling for an agreement on cyber weapons for a long time, and the US has not engaged. It is nice to see progress on this issue, but it is fiendishly complicated. Its like counter-intelligence but with 4 layers of misdirection.
The "no nuclear Iran" is a signal to Israel and China. There is only one country that wants nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and they are the only country that possesses them. Why anyone can think that possessing nuclear weapons is a good idea is completely beyond me. Actually, the same is true of aggressive wars, but I digress.
The Arctic call is a hat tip to Putin like the "I represent the people of america" comment. Its Biden saying to Putin “I was listening”. Try and find some US MSM editorial that references these comments of Biden echoing Putin or referencing him. These are critically important comments. You don’t get rapprochement without a fair amount of “I’m hearing what you are saying”.
The Ukrainian comment is a victory for Putin and a signal to the Ukraine and France and Germany to get moving. Biden is deeply enmeshed in this whole thing (see son and Burisma), and both he and Putin know this. The key strategic outcome of the Minsk agreement is the establishment of these limited autonomous regions in Donetsk and Lugansk. Their creation essentially bars the Ukraine from entering NATO, which is Russia's aim (also known by two other useful terms "red-line" and "Niet means Niet"). It is far from done, and pieces on the board(s) need to be moved, so to say, before resolution.
The final "tone" comment is to affirm the meeting's outcome; establishing better relations. But the last comment about "hyperbolic" is directly aimed at the media, who later ask questions that demonstrate that they either don’t listen to their president or don’t have sufficient brain cells to generate a new question when the one which they had prepared has already been answered.
The Media
Note that the Russian media asked President Putin open questions which were relevant to recent political or geopolitical topics which were likely to have been discussed at the meeting, whilst the US/Western media asked "gotcha" questions as Babich describes in his commentary and I have already noted.
Here, there are only US or US funded journalists. Their behaviour is just as insufferable, but Biden walks the line between complying with narratives that cannot be questioned and being diplomatic towards Russia when that option is available.
People have complained about the completely controlled nature of the Biden press conference (no "foreign" journalists and a pre-prepared list of persons to ask, hinting at pre-prepared questions). I come back to Biden's age. He could not do what Putin did, and making him look like a fool really doesn't help. It just means analysts need to take that into account and do with it what they will.
The FIRST question is all about Russia did X and Y and Z and your predecessor did nothing about this and what did you threaten Russia with? Same old, same old. It all harks back to the completely debunked Russiagate narrative which they cannot give up. Biden does his best to deflect but walks into the big gaff about "what would it be like if the rest of the world thought the the US interfered in other nations elections". Ooops. But, it is the media asking these stupid loaded questions.
A similar gaff about the proven-did-not-happen-chemical-weapons attacks (at least in Douma) in Syria follows. Again, I highlight that these are unassailable US media talking points, and there are serious political consequences for questioning them, even if you have the evidence of history and whistleblowers, respectively, to back up questioning these false narratives.
The key understanding for looking at the question/answer section is to know the audience to which he is speaking and who is transmitting that speech. The US domestic audience who know very little about history or geopolitics except as guided by their corporate controlled commercial media. Do you expect Biden to segway into, “well, actually we had already cracked the Japanese Purple code, so we knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming. That's why we moved the aircraft carriers out a week before. It was really sad we had to lose lots of lives and a few ships, but the Congress was against entering the war, and there was much benefit to be had from doing so. See what happened afterwards, you dotards. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. Next question ...”. I am not claiming that Biden knows about the cracking of the Purple codes or any of the backstory to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Third question, just as before. Blah blah Mr Putin as an "international disruptor" blah blah "consequences for actions" in "cyber". During Biden's response he says "without quoting him [Putin], which I don’t think is appropriate". I see these as little signals saying "We need to be able to talk, and for the contents of those conversations to remain private, when not previously agreed to be made public". People like to talk about trust. This is Biden signalling a little of that, not in Putin directly, but that there needs to be a level of trust to underpin diplomacy (which is my the US was so pissed at Wikileaks for publishing the diplomatic cables). Actually, the last part of this response is careful diplomacy within the restrictions of the media audience; "not looking for a cold war", "not good for you or me or Russia" type comments. He does wedge China in there, because that's the current focus.
Question 4 has three parts, the last two of which Biden has already answered in his opening comments. Idiot journalist, with no brain cells, see above.
Question 5 is about cyber security, and again, Biden is careful to explicitly state that he believes it was criminals, not directed by Russia, but probably acting from their territory for the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack. "They [Russia] didn't do it. I dont think they planned it, in this case, and are they going to act?" This I take back to Biden's reference to "hyperbolic". He's telling the media to calm the f*ck down. Let me get some diplomacy done here, please.
There is a follow up which misrepresents Putin's response to the "gotcha" question about "cracking down" on something. He laughs, and then redirects his response.
Question 6 brings up the "killer" comment. (Face slap). Biden: "He's satisfied. Why would I bring it up again?" He then laughs. i.e Grow up, you troll.
Question 7 "Do you believe you can trust him?" (Face Slap). Biden "Look. This is not about trust. Its about self-interest, and verification, self-interest."
Question 8 is about free media, and US's media arms in Russia being required to register as foreign agents (oh, like RT in the US). Biden is not interested in the framing, and redirects towards national reputation.
Biden puts on his sun glasses and reaches for his coat, at which point the press gallery start yelling.
Biden takes one more question which includes "is military response an option for ransomware attack ... [references the 'no soul' comment] ... do you know have a deeper understanding of him ...". Biden: "Thank you very much".
There were more a couple more too complex and poorly expressed questions. Biden danced a little.
Conclusions
Having looked at analyses from persons with experience in geopolitical analysis from the US, UK, Brazil, and Russia, and done my own analysis of the two press conferences, and having a reasonably developed, I believe, understanding of the backgrounds to the two Presidents and their objectives, I have some conclusions.
The obvious is the sequence of events: G7, NATO, EU, US/Russia summit. Biden is trying to create his role as a leading statesman by gathering relevant allied groups. We all know the issue is China/BRI and their rising economic and technological power. They have rovers on the Moon and Mars.
Was Biden trying to create a rift between Russia and China, yes.
Will it work, no.
Can constructive dialog on important things like billions of people dying due to nuclear war happen, yes.
Was it worth it, yes.
What will come of it, time will tell.
The elephant in the room this time around is western, particularly US, media. They have completely fallen for "Hate, Inc" by Matt Taibbi. All they can do is attempt to create division, even when their President is meeting with a major foreign leader to partially repair diplomatic damage that they have fuelled.
Just as I’m trying to give President Biden the benefit of the doubt here, and see through the lens of media framing, I have compassion for these poor journalists who are churning out click bait and not actually doing their jobs. It must feel demeaning to them, if they reflect upon it. As I said recently, given an interview with President Putin I would delegate the questioning and interviewing to those more expert, but if I were one of the “assigned” journalists at this conference I would have had a list of at least 10 interesting questions, and been crossing them off if they were answered so that when my turn came I could offer one, interesting, unloaded question to which Biden could respond. Hey CNN, how about:
Given that the Ukraine/Donbas conflict is current, and we have seen how military deconfliction structures were established in Syria to prevent attacks between national armies, have similar structures been established, or discussions about those occurred, should conflict erupt in eastern Europe?
Revised Key Outcomes
The meeting occurred and was lead by the longer session with no advisors.
A modicum of diplomacy has been restored, with the return of diplomats, and the language used in the post summit press conferences
Nuclear and other "strategic arms" talks are to occur
Cyber weapons talks are to occur
The Minsk v2 Accords are the path to resolve Ukraine/Donbas conflict
US media cannot ask a single, useful, non-loaded question to either President.
Sources
A Russian View of The Summit - No big deal, Regis Tremblay and Dmitry Babich.
Brussels Summit Communiqué, Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels 14 June 2021. I reference paragraph 55.
Biden holds press conference after bilateral meeting with Russian President Putin — 6/16/21