Thursday, May 27, 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


No comments:

Post a Comment