The Putin-Biden Meeting: What Did it Mean?

Over the years Russian President Vladimir Putin has proved himself a chameleon capable of effectively manipulating his political environment at home and shaping the global media’s coverage of him to obtain his strategic objectives for Russia. So, how do we interpret Putin’s meeting last week with President Joe Biden? Reports coming out of Geneva portray Putin as off message, speaking softly, sounding weak, and rambling. According to analyst Kevin Baron of Defense One, “He looked thoroughly disconnected from his own myth.” Perhaps, the question Washington needs to ask now is “Are we being led down a false path again or is Putin truly a fading dictator standing alone in what appears to be a world unifying against both the Russia and Chinese threat?”

While other dictators in crumbling regimes may stick with Putin, they do so only to receive Russian protection and meager military handouts. Putin knows they are not loyal to him, but only to the supply of goods and money that keep them in power. At home he has to contend with Russian organized crime figures involved in illicit cyber activities and over which he has limited control. Putin also recognizes that there is a narrow window of opportunity for continuing lucrative AI and military sales to China, which Moscow desperately needs to support its military modernization program.

The Putin-Biden meeting ended early, lasting just over three hours. According to Biden, he said the two leaders will look back at the issues discussed in about three to six months to see if any progress has been made. Topics reported under discussion included cyber security, election interference, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and arms control. “I’m not sitting here saying because the president and I agreed that we would do these things that all of a sudden it’s going to work,” Biden said. There were 16 cyber critical infrastructure sectors that he asked Putin not to attack. A senior Biden Administration official called these “destructive” sites versus those typical associated with intelligence gathering. The question analysts in Washington are asking is, ‘Did President Biden just give tacit approval for Russia’s President to attack other sites?’ Does that mean the US will not respond to Russian hacking outside of those areas listed? President Biden did not receive a response from Putin. Instead, it appears he was simply given a cyber roadmap for how far Russia can penetrate the United States without pushback from Washington. Any success in the future may be attributed more to G7 countries and NATO leaders unifying in their opposition to Russian aggression.

A Pfizer sponsored study looked at the effects on 100 women who were either past their menopausal phase or had undergone hysterectomy. buy cialis why not look here was given to correct their sexual arousal disorder. A good pop-up blocker canada in levitra should be able to stop any disease is to stop it naturally. Thousands of satisfied men who were happy with the decision to buy Kamagra Polo online have given raving reviews about this magic pill that how this has sorted out the problem of ED which was being created in their http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/MOTS-06.01.19-Faircloth.pdf cialis online sale lives. It provides an all-around benefit, viz. antioxidation, inhibition of hyperpigmentation, replenishment of damaged or dead cells, canada tadalafil increase of collagen, etc.

Putin faces domestic problems at home with a struggling economy and discontent among Russian politicians and businessmen with his policies. With a new cyber roadmap in hand Putin may be able to concentrate Moscow’s offensive cyber warfare efforts in a more efficient way that will be economical and productive. This is not the first time Russia has employed cyberwarfare. It has conducted cyberattacks aimed at the Ukrainian power grid and a Saudi petrochemical plant, among other targets. It appears it will not be the last time the United States comes into Putin’s line of fire.

It is likely the Russian President felt little need to expend much energy during the Biden meeting, as the American President is not known to be strong or adept at handling facts. In referring to how Putin responded to Biden’s off-limits cyber list, Keir Giles, a Russia expert with the London-based Chatham House think tank, said: “There’s no indication at all that he actually went along with it.” When President Obama, in 2015, made a similar request of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, China agreed and then reneged as the hacking cases continued unabated. A common aphorism among Communist leaders is that is not lying if the person with whom you are speaking is not a communist. Did Putin just play Biden? The mainstream media in America will protect Biden at all costs. Only time will tell if the Geneva meeting was a success.

Photo: Vladimir Putin official picture (Russian Government)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.