As it is, the agenda of the meeting is a diversified set of forecasts from the media and the world of politics: the build-up of the Russian military presence near the eastern border of Ukraine,  annexation of Crimea, interference in the US presidential campaign of 2016, cyber attack on Solar Winds, situation around human rights and Alexei Navalny, forced landing of a Ryanair plane and arrest of Belarusian dissident  Roman Protasevich, Russia's possible involvement in the killings of US servicemen in Afghanistan, Russia's role in the Syrian conflict, probing the Russian role in the search for resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Some sort of agreement on climate change is more likely.

It should be added that representatives of the US State Department are due to visit countries of the South Caucasus in a few days, and during these visits, the problem of conflicts and ways to overcome them will undoubtedly be discussed. First of all, this concerns the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is unmonitored by the West. Note that positions of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are quite transparent for the United States. In May, Secretary of State Blinken met with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Reykjavik, and National Security Adviser Sullivan met with Russian Security Council Secretary Patrushev. In short, American diplomacy has done a very good job before the upcoming meeting.

It should be recalled that a proposal for personal meeting has first been voiced by Putin after the unpleasant characteristics of Biden but was ignored. Therefore, Biden's counteroffer was unexpected and sensational against the backdrop of growing tensions in the US-Russian relations. Under these circumstances, Putin will certainly perceive the offer of negotiations as a sign of political weakness.

It should be emphasized that the media and US politicians are generally skeptical about the meeting results believing that the only way to influence Putin is the threat of personal sanctions, and everything else only strengthens Putin's status in the eyes of the world and Russians. It is noted that the Russian approach to nearly all international stability-related issues is mainly negative and destructive. It is no mere coincidence that there is growing concern in the Congress from representatives of both parties over Biden administration's approach to relations with Moscow. According to press reports, 75% of Democrats in the legislature are not very happy with the proposed rapprochement with Russia, and 95% of Republicans are generally against such a step.

It has to be noted that US analysts put forward two versions of the meeting background: strategic, according to which the Biden administration is engaged in implementing a large-scale action plan, and the stabilization of relations with Russia is a part of this plan; tactical – Biden made a decision to meet  and thus demonstrate that, unlike Trump, he is a reliable person who can ensure the stability and security of the country. In addition, it is worth mentioning that some time ago, influential American analysts and commentators wrote an open letter calling for dialogue with the Kremlin.

In the meanwhile, it is thought that Biden has no strategic plans for Russia. Therefore, there is some danger that now in this difficult situation, Biden is eager to find something similar to Obama's" reset policy" with the pragmatic goal of showing the US interest in defusing tensions. This is the main danger of the upcoming meeting. Opponents of rapprochement with Russia believe that" Americans cannot adapt their thinking to people that represent the state, for which a person is sort of expendable material for projects of those in power." They cannot understand the level of cynicism of the Russian political system.

Also, columnist for The American Spectator (former Deputy Secretary of Defense) Jed Babbin sums up the "protest" opinion: "If the goal of the upcoming summit of Russian and US presidents in Geneva is to restore "predictability and stability" between the two countries, then it makes no sense. Moscow takes everything it can from Washington, and it will get nothing for it. The same is true of the upcoming meeting in Geneva. And it will be surprising if the talks in Geneva would lead to any meaningful results. Putin is not going to miss the opportunity provided by the summit to once again position himself as an indispensable player on the international stage."

That said, it would be politically short-sighted to view the situation in the modern world exclusively in the context of US-Russian relations in terms of such a global factor as China. Analysts grow to believe that the upcoming summit is meant to identify alignment of political forces in the triangle USA - Russia – China, more likely in the doctrine of «big two» under which the «expiring power» (Russia) gives place to «budding superpower» (China) in a new bipolar world.

From all has been said above it follows that is why the position that the upcoming summit should determine the balance of political forces in the US - Russia - China triangle is being strengthened. Actually, not even in the "triangle", but in the "big two" doctrine, according to which the "fading superpower" (Russia) gives way to the "rising superpower" (China) in the new bipolar world. The upcoming meeting in Geneva will, in a certain sense, outline the future of the global political process.

Perhaps, this determines the order of meetings between Biden and his main political opponents? And in this sense, a question of whether Biden's meeting with Xi Jinping will happen depend largely on the outcome (failure or success) of the meeting with Putin?!

In any case, speaking recently to military personnel at a base in Virginia with reference to the experience of his previous numerous meetings with Chinese President Joe Biden, he said: "Xi Jinping firmly believes that China will have America by 2035."

A question arises: does this mean that Joe Biden views Russia more as a current problem for the United States than as a long-term strategic challenge? The only obstacle to a completely positive answer to this question is the fact that the United States and Russia are the leading nuclear powers and bear the primary responsibility for strategic security and stability. At the same time, Russia, at the cost of excessive efforts, was able to outstrip the United States in some areas of offensive weapons.

The United States, of course, could benefit from a confrontational clash of interests between Russia and China, since without each other's support, their positions in the world become much weaker, while losing the positive dynamics aimed at balancing interests and cooperation on numerous levels. However, Washington is not able to create a split in relations between Moscow and Beijing, since both capitals understand that joint resistance to pressure from the United States is their natural common interest, and this makes their relations strong and protected from any shocks.

It is interesting to note that Russia and China hold regular consultations after their contacts with the United States, and the leaders of both countries exchange views in the course of personal meetings about what had been discussed during their negotiations with Washington. Experts note that Moscow and Beijing have developed their relations to a level that covers almost all areas of bilateral cooperation- "from economics and politics to global governance, technology, military and humanitarian exchanges. The deepening of cooperation can be done through a trust-based exchange of sensitive technologies, and this is evidenced by the decisions of both countries regarding the integration of space programs, as well as the joint development of a missile defense system."

In other words, J. Biden, the first US president to fulfill his election promise to recognize the "Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire", is going to meet on June 16 with V. Putin, who, with the connivance of D. Trump, drove the West out of the South Caucasus region and created, together with Turkish President R. Erdogan, an unstable but fruitful alliance in the important geopolitical space of confrontation with the United States. It is obvious that regardless of the assessment of the US State Department's mission following the visit to the capitals of the South Caucasus states, the main vector of Western policy in this region will be formed as a result of Biden's consultations with his Western colleagues, which should take place during the three events mentioned earlier. A disturbing factor here is the unilateral position of President Emmanuel Macron, who permanently puts forward radical plans for the return of the West to the South Caucasus region and the "punishment" of Turkey and Azerbaijan. Naturally, as a latent but powerful counterweight to this position, the United Kingdom will act, for which Russia has historically been a constant rival. Germany, appeased by the US decision not to hinder its intentions to become the gas hap of a united Europe, is likely to take a neutral position, generally indulging Washington's particularly urgent requests.

In terms of the current disarray of political sentiments in the EU (especially between its old and new members), there is a high probability of informal recognition of the post-Soviet space as the sphere of Russia's primary interests following the negotiations. This actually means that the movement of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia into the EU and NATO structures will be artificially slowed down (as well as the resolution of conflicts on their territories), and the mood in favor of political and defense neutrality will grow in the societies of these states.

Also, a slightly different approach is predicted for Azerbaijan and Armenia, where the West will try to restore its positions by resuscitating the institution of the Minsk Group co-chairmanship. Needless to say, such a plan is at odds with the intentions of Moscow and Ankara.

At any rate, Azerbaijan needs to strengthen the process of consolidating the results of the 44th war, the number of opponents of which is growing, even capturing Iran (!). In the end, the country itself solves its strategic tasks; as a result, it finds itself in the camp of winners or losers.

Ali Abasov

Leave a review


Follow us on social networks

News Line