The Great Game. November 25, 2021 -- Main Subject: Ukraine

 

Большая игра. Выпуск от 25.11.2021

The Great Game. November 25, 2021

 

Summary: The general thought that Simes, Nikonov and their guests stressed was that Russia had no intention of invading Ukraine, and that politicians in the West and in Ukraine were seeking to create a false impression that such an invasion would take place, largely to support their own sagging popularity. So, they were stirring up crises. Bill Burns and Toria Nuland are mentioned in part two.

[Begin Part One] 

Nikonov observed in his usual tendentious fashion that people in the US were hoping for war, and provoking it.  Otherwise, why was the US carrying out nuclear exercises around Russia? Simes demurred slightly, noting that in the United States, mass media were talking more about the threat posed by Russian maneuvers on Ukraine’s border. Normally, such talk from the US came after there was an incident of some sort (he cited in an elliptical fashion the Soviet shootdown of KAL007 in 1983).

 

Pushkov said that there was a prior example – the Iraq war of 2003.  Saddam Hussein had done “absolutely nothing,” but the US accused him of planning attacks and possessing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. In the UK parliament, people were talking about a chemical or biological attack that could come from Iraq.  But it was complete crap (polnoye vranye). We are being accused of concentrating forces on our own territory, the same as Saddam. The US mass media is not independent. It mainly expresses the opinion of the executive (Biden).  Biden’s popularity has plummeted, as has Kamala Harris’ (Pushkov indicated with some scorn that he didn’t exactly know what she did anyway). So, something has to be done in the foreign policy sphere to compensate. The US doesn’t like two powers: Russia and China. The US is trying to show its leadership over opposing Russia over Ukraine and China over Taiwan.

 

Chesnakov noted that Zelensky’s popularity was also sagging. Something had to be done to boost his rating.  There were reports that on December 1 a state of emergency would be declared. The new Ukrainian Minister of Defense Reznikov has visited the US and is pressing his counterpart to increase military aid, something that has support in Congress. Biden wins if he can create the impression that he has convinced Putin not to attack Ukraine.  This is a part of the Great Game.

Simes commented that neither Washington nor Moscow wanted or needed war, but he cited, with dark humor, Nicholas II’s statement that there would be no war with Japan because he did not want such a war. Simes then introduced Christian Whiton, who was a frequent commenter on Fox News, perhaps the only US news outlet that did not insist that Ukraine was a central interest of the United States.

Whiton responded in English. He said that most on the left and right had adopted a very severe line toward Russia. This was useful to Democrats, but more with regard to China than with Russia. Most Americans don’t want war with Russia. They think the main enemy is China. Neither party has a particularly good idea of how to deal with Russia diplomatically. The mass media has blown the Russia/Ukraine situation out of proportion.

 

[end of part one]

[begin part two]

 

Nikonov asked Yevgeniy Shevchenko whether there was anyone in Kyiv who could serve as a mediator in the current crisis. Shevchenko, whose sympathies are well-known, suggested – apparently in all seriousness -- that Viktor Medvedchuk would be ideal for the job, were he not of course under house arrest for treason. Shevchenko also modestly suggested that he could go to Donetsk (perhaps reprising the behavior in Belarus that got him kicked out of Zelenskiy’s party). The moderators looked a bit nonplussed.

Simes referred back to Putin’s speech to the MFA Collegium on November 18, when he said that Russia did not need a conflict with Ukraine, but that it had deployed forces in view of the crisis situation on the border of Ukraine and around Russia generally to show the West that the “Russian armored train” was in reserve, in case of need. He asked Chesnakov if this statement by Putin showed that talks were not very promising at this point and that the possibility of some kind of military conflict was real.

Chesnakov responded that, first of all, Putin was addressing diplomats, not soldiers, and he was urging them to point out to foreigners the “red lines” that could not be ignored. He was reacting to British naval incidents in the Black Sea and American air deployments around Russia. And he also had in mind current issues such as summit preparations, the Ukraine situation and Minsk II. Chesnakov stressed that in his view Russia had no need for war at this time, as it had many pressing problems to deal with.  But military action might be viewed in Kyiv as important and useful, not just in Donbass but in Crimea as well, and as Ukraine Defense Minister Reznikov said, they were preparing for provocations from the Russian side.

Nikonov quoted from “the most experienced diplomat” Bill Burns’ memoir “The Back Channel,” in which the current Director of the CIA described “not entirely accurately, but candidly” the events around the Georgia conflict in 2008. Burns noted that Saakashvili received different signals from the US, depending on whether he was speaking to the State Department, the Pentagon, or Vice President Cheney’s team [Nikonov is substantially correct. See p. 241 of “The Back Channel”]. He asked Pushkov whether we were not in a similar situation now, where some elements of the USG would try to push Zelenskiy into a conflict with Russia.

Pushkov replied that it’s clear that the Biden administration also has its moderate wing and its extreme wing. There is general agreement that the US must give support to Ukraine in its political battle with Russia, and some favor military support as well for activities on the borders, in Donbass or the Black Sea, and this view is gaining support. Of course, the American public doesn’t want war of any kind, but it will react to events and support – at first – whatever the elite decides to do, as happened in the case of Vietnam, Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile, the US is giving signals to Ukraine that if it starts something, the US will support it. That’s what these air exercises around Russia are all about. He didn’t think that America would send troops to Ukraine, but the US would certainly push Ukraine to do something.  Ukrainians, for them, are cannon fodder. Zelenskiy looks at Biden and Stoltenberg with ecstasy. He can hardly restrain himself from falling on his knees and licking their boots. He’s the kind of person who can be easily influenced and might do something out of stupidity. And there are people in the US who want to push Ukraine into war with Russia.

Simes replied that it was clear that the Biden administration did not want to send US troops to Ukraine and had not promised this, but it would do everything else to support Ukraine, including to supply arms. Simes was struck by how Putin was portrayed in such dark terms as an aggressor, but that there was still an assumption that he would sit by idly while Ukraine was being armed against Russia. He asked Whiton if there was in Washington an understanding of Russia’s red lines, not just on NATO membership, but on the US arming Ukraine.

Whiton replied that he didn’t think there was such a general understanding. Such an awareness was confined to the foreign policy establishment and people like Under Secretary Victoria Nuland, who during her time in the Obama administration dictated who could be in the Ukrainian government and who could not. Simes asked if the Biden administration knew that it should be very careful about this.  Whiton replied that they did not. The Summit of Democracies would likely result in new threats against Russia. Nikonov added that the UK had already said it would send troops to Ukraine, as had Canada (“even Sweden,” added Pushkov).

Nikonov then asked Shevchenko a foolish question, to which he gave a series of foolish answers: if Biden ordered Zelenskiy to go to war with Russia, would he do so? The sum and substance of Shevchenko’s rather confusing response was that Zelenskiy was incapable of carrying out such an order, and he was not popular with Ukrainians anyway. Once again, guests and hosts appeared a bit dubious.

Simes asked Pushkov whether he thought the recent statements by President Putin and Defense Minister Shoigu gave cause for optimism that a new dialogue with the West could be opened up.  Pushkov said he thought not – it would be more an exchange of accusations. In general, positions have hardened. The warnings over Russia’s recent destruction of the Tsirkon satellite showed this. The Americans simply aren’t listening. They talk of dialogue, but not in the most important areas for us. Instead, they rehearse a nuclear air attack on our borders (Pushkov seems really hung up about this). All I can say is that Russia will have to demonstrate what these red lines are through action.

Nikonov highlighted the recent meeting between Shoigu and the Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe [where the US “Global Thunder” strategic force exercise was discussed]. Wei stated “In the face of insane deterrence and pressure by the US, China and Russia are in solidarity together, like a great mountain.  Our friendship is unbreakable. Together we will stand against the hegemony of the US, and speak against the fake democratic regime of the US, fake multiculturalism, and new manifestations of the Cold War. Our mutual relations are better than an alliance.” [I gather from this outburst that Wei is not woke].

Nikonov concluded that neither the US nor NATO had the power to deter the Russia-China alliance, and so they were creating problems. Simes did not agree with Nikonov’s analysis. He cited his favorite President Richard Nixon, who once said that “In Washington, people will tell you what you want to hear.  I will tell you what you need to hear.” It’s important for Russians to know that no one wants war, even Zelenskiy. But everyone wants the adversary to make the first concession (“naïve people” interjected Nikonov). We will overcome this, but we have a difficult road ahead.

[end part two]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the complete program on YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYp13Hmrgk0

Summary: Украина пытается убедить США в том, что Россия собирается на нее напасть, и просит защиты. Готовы ли американцы воевать за Украину на самом деле и кто из американской администрации играет в опасную игру? Об этом расскажет известный ведущий канала Fox News Кристиан Уайтон — эксклюзивно в «Большой игре».

 

Ukraine is trying to convince the USA that Russia is intending to attack and is asking for help. Are the Americans really ready to fight for Ukraine, and who in the American administration is playing this dangerous game? Fox News host Christian Whiton discusses this question exclusively with “The Great Game.”

 

Гости студии:

Алексей Пушков, председатель комиссии СФ РФ по информационной политике;

Алексей Чеснаков, директор Центра политической конъюнктуры;

Кристиан Уайтон, старший советник Госдепартамента при администрации Джорджа Буша -мл. и Дональда Трампа;

Евгений Шевченко, внефракционный депутат Верховной рады Украины.

 

Hosts: Dmitriy Simes, Vyacheslav Nikonov

Guests: Aleksey Pushkov, Federation Council committee chairman

Aleksey Chesnakov, Director, Center for Current Policy

Christian Whiton, Senior State Department Adviser in the Trump and George W. Bush administrations. [note: Whiton is actually a Fellow at Dmitriy Simes’ Center for the National Interest. He does not appear to have much expertise in Russia/Ukraine questions]

Yevgeniy Shevchenko, Deputy, Ukrainian Rada (formerly part of the “Servant of the People” Party  

Colin Powell 1937-2021

General Colin Powell passed away today.  It is a great loss for the nation, and for the world.  I didn't know him personally, but I knew a great deal about him, and respected him immensely. 

The only time I ever saw him in person was in 1992, at the National War College, where I was a student. He gave the most impressive speech of the year (at the time, he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).  He spoke before the entire faculty and classes of the NWC and ICAF at George C. Marshall Hall, a relatively new facility on the grounds of Fort McNair.  Powell spoke eloquently, and directly.  He didn’t duck questions, and he engaged with everyone in his uniquely charismatic way.  It was obvious that he was extremely popular with the troops, and for good reason.  

In later years, when he became Secretary of State, I knew exactly what to expect, and I was not disappointed.  His very first speech at the State Department, given on the day of his arrival, was attended by thousands of State employees who spontaneously assembled at the C Street entrance to welcome him.  He was one of the few Secretaries in recent history to actually care about his troops and look out for their welfare during his frequent visits to the Hill, and because of this, he won the loyalty of the working stiffs in the Department to a greater degree than anyone since George Shultz.

I may not have known him personally when he was Secretary of State, but in a way, he knew me.  He was reportedly a fan of the E-Grams I did from Vladivostok and Moscow 2001-2002, and once commented favorably on them in a staff meeting. He paid attention.

General Powell will be missed by all who knew him. We all benefited from his wise and humane policies.

 

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians // Vladimir Putin.

Об историческом единстве русских и украинцев // автор Владимир Владимирович Путин

"The Great Game" Special post-Summit edition: June 16, 2021

 

Summary: "Talks took place between Vladimir Putin and Joseph Biden in Geneva on June 16. First, there was a small group meeting, and then a large group meeting in which the delegations participated. What can be agreed upon when there is no trust? Or is there? Have the two sides stepped back from a dangerous point, or have tensions in relations only increased, as they did following the Putin-Trump meeting in 2018? The first results of the Summit are discussed on “The Great Game.”

Introductory Comment: The general tenor of the discussion among the main guests and moderators on "Bolshaya Igra" was much more optimistic than I had anticipated. This optimism was probably unjustified, but it shows the desire of the commentariat elite, which “The Great Game” represents, for better relations with the US, and their relief that things seemed to go well. Overall, the contrasts between the style of the Moscow pro-Putin media and Washiington pro-Biden media were almost a case of the "blind men and the elephant." Where Moscow media saw a victory for Putin (though not as great as that over Trump at Helsinki), and focused on the set-piece statements of the Putin press conference, but not the gotcha questions from the pro-Biden Washington media and Putin's whataboutism, the pro-Biden Washington media drew the opposite conclusions, hailing the Summit as a victory for Biden. Moscow saw Putin as gaining stature and status, while Washington saw Biden as delivering important messages to Putin for the first time. Both views are true in their own way, but it shows just how far apart the sides really are. End Comment.

Moderator Dmitri Simes began the program by stating that it was obvious that the Summit had achieved positive results, even though they were not particularly large. Federation Council Deputy Chairman Konstantin Kosachev agreed. On the eve of the meeting, there were many dark predictions. It is true that most of the meetings were taken up with an exchange of complaints, but there were also positive results: an agreement to return Ambassadors to their posts, and an agreement to begin a dialogue on strategic stability, as well as cybersecurity, and the Arctic. That was enough for him to conclude that the Summit was productive.

Co-moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov groused that the only source for Russians on the Summit was President Putin, since President Biden had not agreed to take questions from Russian reporters. Putin, did, however, give a positive evaluation of the talks (the big board then played a clip of the press conference in which Putin said there was no hostility and the meetings were constructive -- the Biden press conference had not yet begun).

Konstantin Remchukov, Editor, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, perhaps getting a little carried away, gave very high marks to the Geneva meeting. President Biden had characterized the meeting as between “two great powers,” going against the Obama administration’s evaluation that Russia was a great power only in terms of nuclear arms. Biden refused to demonize Putin, calling him a worthy opponent. Biden seemed to be talking about “peaceful coexistence,” rather than confrontation.

Nikonov noted Putin’s very important statement on strategic stability lauding Biden’s decision to extend New START II (SNV-III). Simes also stressed the importance of an agreement to talk about cybersecurity. Kosachev said that the return of Ambassadors to their posts was a hopeful sign. (the big board played Putin’s statement that MFA and State would meet to discuss problems on the “diplomatic track,” i.e., the current problems with diplomatic staffing). Kosachev noted specifically the problem of diplomatic ceilings and third-country personnel (a US concern) and the “arrest of properties (a Russian concern). (The big board then showed a video of the site where President Biden would soon give his press conference).

Nikonov then referred to the agreement to begin talks about cybersecurity issues, noting that Putin had pointed out that most cyberattacks occurred in the US, and that attacks originating from Russia were small in number (Comment: this is a willful misunderstanding of how cyber attacks work, and how foreigners use US servers to conceal their activities from US intelligence agencies). Putin also pointed out that there was much work to be done on cybersecurity, since Russian complaints had not been answered. Simes called the agreement to begin a dialogue on this issue as an achievement of Russian diplomacy, but conceded that while beginning a dialogue was a great success, the dialogue itself would be very difficult.

Nikonov raised the issue of Ukraine, which was touched on briefly in the Putin press conference. Kosachev commented that the Ukrainians must be disappointed that Biden was not giving them a free ticket into NATO, and that the Minsk process was recognized as valid by the Americans (at least according to Putin and pro-Putin media).

Simes then introduced former State Department official and current Fox News commentator Chris Wighton.  Wighton (speaking in rather loud English dubbed over in Russian), behaved like a good little Quisling. He took only a few seconds to get around to his main point that Putin had gotten more out of the Summit. Biden was at the end of a very busy trip, but he did well too. Before the trip, Biden was saying very aggressive things about Ukraine and cybersecurity retaliation, but it seemed that some red lines had disappeared. The surprising thing was that the Summit did not fall apart. It was bad timing to put it at the end of such a long trip, where Biden would be saying many negative things about Russia. (Comment: Needless to say, my opinion of the quality of Fox commentators is once again confirmed).

“The Great Game” then paused so everyone could watch the first five minutes of President Biden’s press conference, and then cut away for more commentary.

Kosachev complained that American correspondents were less interested in what happened at the talks and more interested in trapping Putin with trick questions (this refers in particular to the question where ABC reporter Rachel Scott asked why all of Putin’s opponents seemed to die or go to prison – what was he afraid of?).

Earlier, Nikonov had advanced the rather astonishing idea that Russia was a more democratic state than the US. After a commercial break, the big board showed Putin’s outrageous “whataboutism” comparison of Russia’s human rights record (being careful not to mention Navalny by name) with the killing of George Floyd (whom he also did not name) and the entirely unrelated January 6 riots. Dmitriy Suslov, Deputy Director at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, then piled on with the unsurprising opinion that Nikonov was correct and that the US was a much bigger violator of human rights. Guantanamo and CIA secret prisons came up, among other things.

Simes said that he would not be bothered by a continued exchange of contrary opinions between the Americans and Russians on human rights. As with Nixon and Kissinger, these subjects could be segregated from other questions. He noted, however, that Ambassador Michael McFaul had said that the US could walk and chew gum at the same time and take up human rights simultaneously with other questions. Kosachev said he would like to see no linkage, but he didn’t see this happening under Biden. At present, Congress had created a large number of linkages through sanctions (Magnitsky Act, etc.).

The group then listened to the latter part of President Biden’s press conference, where he talked about the importance of China, and the fact that Putin did not want a Cold War. Remchukov commented Biden wanted a meeting with Putin primarily because of concerns about China. No one wanted Russia to add its strength to that of China.

Nikonov concluded with one of his typical propaganda end pieces, noting that the United States continued to battle for global hegemony and was trying to drag its allies into a new Cold War, but that Putin had no illusions, as he said at his press conference, and because of this the world was a little safer today.

https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-specialnyy-vypusk-ot-16-06-2021 

“The Great Game.” June 10, 2021

 

“Bolshaya Igra” Summary: Why has NATO conducted exercises near the Russian border on the eve of the meeting between the Presidents of Russia and the USA? Two generals will debate: Col.-Gen.Vladimir Shamanov, Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, and US Embassy Moscow Defense Attache (2012-2014) Brig. Gen. Peter Zwack.

 

Topics actually covered:

(1) American encirclement of Russia/ global military exercises

(2) Biden’s aggressive approach to the Geneva Summit

(3) Putin’s June 9 statement outlining why NATO in Ukraine was a red line [pretty scary stuff] and

(4) What would be necessary for the Geneva Summit to be a success

 

Experts:

Aleksey Pushkov, Federation Council committee chairman

Col-Gen. Vladimir Shamanov

BG Peter Zwack, Defense Attache, US Embassy Moscow 2012-2014

 

Moderator Dmitri Simes began the program by describing the panoply of American and allied military maneuvers around Russia in the run-up to the Geneva Summit, including exercises in Alaska, the Arctic, the Black Sea, the Baltic States, etc. These maneuvers were unlike Russian military maneuvers which took place on Russian territory (or in Belarus, he hastily added) and were happening closer to St. Petersburg and Moscow than Western capitals.

 

Co-moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov noted that only six days remained until the Geneva Summit, and preparations were proceeding apace to prepare the Villa LaGrange for the meeting, and while Vladimir Putin was coming to the meeting with a constructive approach, Biden was adopting a position of strength, as his statement on arrival in the UK at a US military base (RAF Mildenhall) indicated (the key points of Biden’s speech were played on the big screen, along with a picture of an angry-looking Biden and a solemn-looking Putin). Nikonov noted Biden’s statement that “We’re back,” asking rhetorically where were they are back from – Mars?

Pushkov explained that Biden was adopting the position that under Trump the US had withdrawn from world affairs, and so now the US was back, but in fact what he was really doing was renewing a claim of US hegemony. The US was telling everyone that it would not tolerate dissenting views. Biden’s message was that he wanted to dictate the conditions of the talks in Geneva.  He would tell Putin what he should know. Perhaps Biden even wanted to engage in a monologue, but Putin would not stand for this. Nikonov added that Putin had never allowed anyone to speak to him in this way.

 

Shamanov then contrasted what he characterized as years of Russian reasonableness and willingness to talk with American intransigence, starting with the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, ending with the usual description of how the US and its allies were surrounding Russia.

 

BG (ret) Zwack responded (in English dubbed over in Russian) that he was speaking as a private citizen, and not as a USG representative. He stressed that no one wanted any sort of conflict with Russia – period.  How could we find our way out of the current dead end in our relations? He was not optimistic that there would be major progress at the Summit, but at the least we needed to lower the temperature of our relations. Russia spoke of being encircled, but our allies spoke of their fears as well.

 

Nikonov said that nonetheless Russia felt surrounded, The US and its allies had 400 military bases surrounding Russia.  Russia had no such bases surrounding the US.

 

After the commercial break, Simes complimented Zwack on the fact that he said the same thing to both sides and did not tailor his remarks for his audience. That said, America did have significant forces surrounding Russia. Simes was sure that the US did not intend to attack Russia, but you would have to admit that Russian military figures like General Shamanov would have to view these forces with concern (the big board then showed the forces arrayed in Sea Breeze 2021 and Steadfast Defender 2021, as well as other exercises in Scandinavia and Alaska).

 

Zwack said that the forces described were defensive in nature under the meaning of NATO Article Five, and the forces were limited in size.

 

Nikonov grimaced and disputed this point, pointing out that some of the forces (Estonia, Black Sea) were strategic and offensive in nature. He then turned to Putin’s “very important statement” drawing a red line on Ukraine. [the big board then played Putin’s June 9 statement, in which he discussed how the military situation would change if Ukraine became a NATO member. The flight time for a rocket from Dnepropetrovsk or Kharkov to Moscow would be 7-10 minutes. Putin compared that to the flight time to Washington when Russian missiles were stationed in Cuba (15 minutes). To get a flight time of 7-10 minutes, Russian rockets would have to be stationed on the US-Canada border. Would the US consider that to be a red line or not?]. Then the big board showed a June 8 statement by Secretary of State Blinken supporting NATO membership for Ukraine.

Comment: Putin's statement uses dangerous and self-serving logic. Putin of course omits to mention that Russia could put its missiles within five minutes of Washington anytime simply by stationing subs off the U.S. coast.  It's all a part of Russia's perpetual "we are surrounded" mantra which they hope distracts from their own transgressions and promotes popular support. This is not to say, of course, that Putin does not believe his own propaganda.  It may be that he does. 

Comment continued: Similarly, by changing the overall message to "Biden is aggressive, Putin is not," Russians seek to distract attention from issues that they would prefer never to raise at all, such as human rights and political freedoms. This is much more effective than the old Soviet "Everybody Does It" whataboutism defense, where the Soviets would seek to falsely equate their human rights abuses with criminal proceedings occurring in America (January 6 insurrection, et al). End Comment.

 

Pushkov noted that US strategic bombers were already flying in Ukraine, even though Ukraine was not a NATO member. President Biden had said in 2015 that Crimea would be an excellent spot to deploy American troops. This is not defensive. Isn’t this an attempt to cross a red line, he asked?

 

Zwack said that Washington well understood the complexities of this question. Ukraine had the right to territorial integrity and to determine its own future. Biden’s statement that “America is back” meant that America has returned not just to Europe but to the entire international arena, including Russia. This did not mean that we cannot have normal relations with Russia, including mil-to-mil talks.

 

Pushkov expressed discontent with this answer. Ukraine was the key question. How could there be cooperation with Russia through a policy of intimidation? In response to Simes’ question, Pushkov said that Biden’s current tone could indeed affect the Summit. He was attempting to make up for the US loss of influence by adopting a more aggressive tone, as if we were still in the 20^th Century, by attempting to dictate what was said at the talks, presenting complaints, and insisting on preconditions.

 

Nikonov then asserted incorrectly that the Ukrainian people were against NATO membership, even though most of the leadership was for it, because they knew they would just be cannon fodder, and everyone recognized that they would be run by the United States (Nikonov has a unique way of looking at alliances as if they were all the Warsaw Pact). Shamanov added that NATO could not admit Ukraine as long as the Donbas problem (LNR/DNR) remained unresolved.

 

Nikonov then asked what would be necessary for the Geneva Summit to be pronounced a success? Simes talked about his time as a CBS correspondent 35 years ago when Reagan and Gorbachev met in Geneva at their first summit. Reagan took his responsibilities seriously.  He tried to learn all he could about Russian thought and culture, from Suzanne Massie, among others.  He came to Geneva ready to work hard.  He was an “iron man” who was not interested in making concessions, but he wanted the summit to be a success and he knew what he should not say, since it would interfere with progress at the summit and what he should say.  If Biden approaches Geneva in a similar spirit, there will be success.

 

Nikonov propounded the dubious theory that the US was most interested in agreements only when they were most disturbed about the current state of affairs.  The US was disturbed about Russian qualitative superiority in strategic arms, and they were also disturbed about the cuts in Embassy/Consulate staff, so there would probably be progress on those two issues.  As for the rest, probably there would be no progress. Still, if the dialogue were not toxic, that would be progress in and of itself. 

TV1 link to this program: https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-vypusk-ot-10-06-2021

Note: The next "Great Game" will be a special broadcast just after the conclusion of the June 16 Summit  

“The Great Game.” June 3, 2021

 

“Bolshaya Igra” Summary: “The American big brother surveils European leaders. A major blow to Washington’s reputation in the old world a week before the official visit of Joe Biden to the NATO Summit. What does this scandal mean for Russia?”

This was something of a wasted hour. Rather than concentrating on the upcoming Biden-Putin summit, moderators Dmitriy Simes, Vyacheslav Nikonov and guests opened with a lengthy discussion of a “scandal” that was nearly a week old and had completely escaped my notice. It was a revival of allegations by Edward Snowden that NSA had spied on European leaders a decade ago. The new wrinkle: Denmark helped. The news was broken over the last weekend by a Danish news agency. I suspect the news tip was most likely received from Russian sources, all in an attempt to sow discord before the upcoming NATO Summit and to put President Biden off his stride.

Much of the rest of the hour was devoted to an interview with MFA Spokesperson Mariya Zakharova, who flacked for the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and repeated predictable talking points on the latest “scandal,” the Ryanair hijacking, the JBS Meats hacking and other subjects.

The end of the program was devoted to a discussion of President Biden’s May 30 statement that only America was founded on an idea (democracy) and he would press Putin on human rights issues. This was met with raised eyebrows by the panel, and MGIMO professor Andranik Migranyan described it as a “gaffe” to claim that only America was founded on an idea. This was the signal for everyone else to pile on with their own recitation of reasons why Biden’s claim that America was exceptional was hypocritical. Simes concluded the discussion by commenting that Biden had also recently associated himself in Tulsa with “Black Lives Matter,” which was based on the idea that U.S. history began in 1619 and the beginning of slavery. Wasn’t that also an idea?

Simes summed up the discussion by noting that the summit would soon be upon us, and the predictions of the mass media did not inspire optimism. But he cautioned that the professionals were working “quite seriously,” and he wished both Presidents success. Nikonov, in a classic case of projection, concluded that the summit was not doomed to failure because Putin had never failed at any summit, Biden would never admit that he had failed, and the mainstream U.S. media, who viewed Biden as above reproach, would support him.

https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-vypusk-ot-03-06-2021

"The Great Game" 27.05.2021 (1) Prospects for Biden-Putin Summit; (2) Ryanair Hijacking & Lukashenko's Turn to the East

 

In contrast to the somewhat hysterical tone adopted by much of the Russian state media toward the United States this week, Thursday night’s “Great Game” stuck to a much more sober and conciliatory tone as moderators and guests talked mainly about the upcoming June 16 Biden-Putin Summit and Nord Stream 2. The middle of the hour was consumed by an aimless discussion of EU politics, which was then followed  at the end by a rather short consideration of the Ryanair hijacking and Lukashenko’s apparent decision to junk his multi-vector foreign policy in favor of becoming a “Farpost” of Eurasia, something that had moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov smacking his lips in anticipation of greater things to come.

 

Nikonov lead off the hour by summarizing the agenda of the upcoming Geneva Summit as he saw it: (1) Strategic stability, against the background of the complete destabilization of the international system, (2) Arms control, against the background of the end of the Open Skies Treaty, (3) Ukraine, against the background of an intensifying civil confrontation in that country, and (4) Belarus, against the background of a major turn in European politics as Belarus “landed” the Ryanair flight, the EU imposed sanctions, and Lukashenko talked of becoming a “Farpost” of Eurasia. Over the past three days, the United States had said nothing bad about Russia, and had refrained from calling Russia an enemy.  He then asked moderator Dmitri Simes: “Why is this?”

Simes responded with a laugh, “the Summit.” They are now concentrating on ways to prevent the Summit from being disrupted. A decision had been taken to moderate rhetoric, and for this Biden deserved credit. Simes then contrasted the roles played by Trump and Biden in relations with Russia, noting that while both were personally involved in the US-Russian relationship, the Trump administration was often not ready to act and was not motivated by Trump to act, whereas under Biden it was different (there was much to-ing and fro-ing in Simes remarks, but the sense was that Trump was incompetent and Biden wasn’t).

Simes then asked Federation Council Committee Chairman Aleksey Pushkov if he thought this change in tone would help lead to some specific results at the Summit. Pushkov replied that Biden did have an advantage over Trump.  Like Nixon and Reagan, he started from a hardline anti-Soviet/anti-Russian position. He therefore had an “alibi” that would enable him to neutralize hardline critics.  But the fact was that there was little to agree on at the Summit. For example, it is hard to see what progress could be made on issues around Ukraine or Syria. On Iran, it was more what the US and Iran could agree on, not Russia. On sanctions, Biden had said he would not lift them, so no progress would be likely there.

 

Simes interrupted to remind that Biden had waived some Nord Stream 2 sanctions, but Nikonov argued this affected Germany, not Russia, at which point Biden was shown on the big screen saying that the sanctions had been waived because NS2 was almost completed anyway and this was done out of consideration for relations with Europe. Pushkov conceded that Russia also benefited from the waiving of sanctions, but that 75 major sanctions remained which were aimed at smothering the Russian economy. Pushkov went on to say that the “field for agreement” was rather narrow. The main thing would be whether the climate of the relationship improved as a result of the Summit. For example, if there could be a relaxation of tensions, if our Ambassadors returned to their Embassies, if we could agree not to create problems for our diplomatic missions, if there could be renewed consultations on Afghanistan, if we could agree on ways to fight global warming, if we could create a working group on cyber-security, etc. In other words, if we could place ourselves on a positive course, not one that leads to another crisis like the Cuban missile crisis.

 

Nikonov added that no one in Congress would speak in favor of improving relations (“except for Rand Paul,” interjected Dmitriy Suslov, Higher School of Economics, “or Tulsi Gabbard,” added Pushkov, until reminded she was no longer in Congress). Nikonov asked Suslov if he agreed with Pushkov.  Suslov said his views coincided with those of Pushkov, although he might be a little more pessimistic. Domestic politics were highly polarized.  Republicans had heavily criticized Biden on Nord Stream 2, for example. The Summit can stabilize and control the relationship, but probably not improve it. The Biden administration does not want a worsening of relations with Russia, as its main concern is the “Chinese factor.” The US is mobilizing its allies against China. Also, in contrast to the Trump administration, the Biden administration is very much in favor of arms control and avoiding an arms race with Russia. New strategic stability talks could be one result of the Summit.

 

Simes commented that the possibilities for new talks were much wider than that, because, in contrast to the Trump administration, under Biden the role of the “spetssluzhb” was much larger. Professionals would play a greater role than before. Simes sounded much more optimistic, noting that there might be no progress on sanctions at the Summit, but reducing the possibility of a new nuclear crisis like the Cuban missile crisis is hardly unimportant.

 

Simes then called on one of his deputies in Washington, Mark Episkopos, a National Security reporter at the National Interest, to evaluate the situation there. Episkopos said that very few among the elite in Washington thought it possible that there would be major results from the Summit, but supporters believed that it would be a symbolic step that would add predictability and stability to the relationship. There were some specific subjects, however, for a serious dialogue, including Afghanistan, North Korea, climate and arms control. Under Trump, Democrats had objected to the very idea of a Putin-Trump meeting in Helsinki.  Now it was Republicans who were criticizing Biden for meeting with Putin, including Senator Ben Sasse and Ambassador Michael McFaul (Amb. McFaul will be surprised to learn that he is now a Republican). Note: Episkopos spoke good Russian, at least for an American. He did mix up the words “partizanskiy” with “partiyniy,” which caused merriment in Moscow, but other than that he was fine.

 

There was little of further interest in the program until the very end, when the subject finally turned to the Ryanair hijacking.  The panelists’ commentary was interesting in that it covered almost none of the matters that created outrage and concern in the West, focusing instead on the only good news for Moscow, which was that Lukashenko appeared to be orienting himself toward the East. In particular, Nikonov singled out what was most important for him: Lukashenko’s May 26 speech in which he said that Belarus would look elsewhere for its economic opportunities if the West did not want it.  Belarus would become the “Farpost” of Eurasia. Suslov commented that the extreme reaction of the West was caused by despair, because “potentially” it was losing Belarus. There was no possibility that Lukashenko would orient himself toward the West, or that there would be a color revolution in Minsk. All of the panelists, with the exception of Simes, commented on the double standard adopted by the West.  They could arrest planes, but Belarus couldn’t. Pushkov concluded that Lukashenko’s dubious and contradictory multi-vector foreign policy had perished, and it was time for Belarus to recognize that Crimea is a part of the Russian Federation.

https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski/bolshaya-igra-vypusk-ot-27-05-2021

Bolshaya Igra: "A Democracy of Distorted Mirrors." March 18, 2021

The entire "Great Game" program was devoted to the consequences of President Biden's response to ABC host George Stephanopoulos' question: "Do you think Putin is a killer?" with Biden's answer, "mm-hmm, I do."

Moderator Vyacheslav Nikonov called Biden's remark "boorish," and then cut to President Putin's response, in which he sarcastically wished Biden good health (his tone, at least to my ears, implying that something might be wrong President Biden), and reverted to schoolboy insults along the lines of whatever you say about me you are really saying about yourself because you are looking in a mirror -- hence, the program's "distorted mirror" title.

Moderator Dmitriy Simes commented that since the ABC interview with Biden was recorded, his remark could have been edited out. That would seem to indicate that Biden's comment on Putin was calculated. He asked MGIMO professor Andrey Sushentsov whether he thought Biden's response was just, as some thought, a case of senility, or an unfortunate consequence of his unusual demeanor, or something worse. Sushentsov thought it might have been calculated, and could represent the first step in putting US-Russian relations on hold, as the Americans had no real plans for Russia over the next four years.

Duma Committee Chairman Aleksey Pushkov said that what Biden did was totally unacceptable. He would be better off shutting up and just "chewing gum." He enjoys showing off, he has Freudian complexes. He then repeated the standard Russian disinformation on Burisma/Shokin/Biden.

Pushkov also noted that Russian Ambassador Anatoliy Antonov had been recalled to take stock of relations with the U.S. He hoped that the recall would be short.

Simes observed that Russia had up until now observed a policy of strategic patience, but was this warranted now? Should Russia now act unpleasantly and hurtfully against the U.S. and its allies, in the Donbas, in the Baltics, or in Afghanistan, for example? Should Russia raise the price for the United States? Sushentsov said Russia would respond only in accord with its own vital interests, which are defined mostly by its borders. "A kinetic response to a public insult would be an outdated response from ancient times." Sushentsov thought that Biden might be regretting his comment now.

MFA spokeswoman Mariya Zakharova then appeared by telebridge. Zakharova said that Ambassador Antonov would return to Moscow not to make a political point, but for real consultations about the state of the relationship. Simes noted that it was appropriate for Antonov to return in any case, since Covid had prevented him from going to Moscow for quite some time. But would there be a serious result? Zakharova equivocated, noting that "all we see now is a deadlock. You need to break the deadlock," but U.S. foreign policy appeared to be just a weapon in the domestic political battle -- in other words, it was up to the U.S. to get the two countries out of the current dead end.

Pushkov concluded that a "political war is on" between the U.S. and Russia. Renewing START had been necessary, and Russian will have to work with the Americans on climate change, but otherwise, contacts will have to be curtailed. There will be confrontation, but no shooting war. And eventually, the U.S. will get around to doing the right thing. It is the 21st Century. The U.S. can no longer rule the world. Simes agreed, but cautioned that Biden's approach had substantial Congressional support. The relationship would go through some hard times.

The program closed with Putin's call for a conversation with Biden, saying that it should be live and online so that the Russian and American people and others could view it for themselves.

The English translation of this program has just appeared on the Channel One site and is linked here:

https://www.1tv.ru/shows/big-game/vypuski-s-angliyskim-perevodom/the-great-game-18-03-2021