Pragmatism in Geneva as Biden, Putin stabilise ties

America’s President Joe Biden and Russia’s boss Vladimir Putin, showing a remarkable order of statesmanship and good sense, avoided any temptation to offer drama and guaranteed failure in their first (business-like) meeting in Geneva on Wednesday, an outcome which may have pleased the liberal extremists of America, no matter how bad it may have been for the world.

Instead, they provided a low-key, “pragmatic”, way forward in their bilateral relationship which can probably only move forward in cautious, incremental steps, so deep is the mutual mistrust accumulated in the three decades since the collapse of the USSR and the birth of Russian capitalism which does not privilege a political system that exalts Western-style individualism.

With the perpetually drunk Boris Yeltsin the new czar in Moscow when Communism ended, the US sensed they had in the bag the only country, which was its military equal and exercised geostrategic influence as well. With his early exit and the arrival on the scene of Mr Putin, a former middle-rank KGB agent, expectations from the new Russia faded as this leader fortified himself on the plank of Russian nationalism.

President Biden has played his hand with finesse. He planned his first face-to-face contact with Mr Putin very early in his presidency — and not long after calling the Russian leader “a murderer”. This bolstered his liberal credentials (and his constituents loved it), and situated him as an emphatic counterpoint to his disastrous predecessor, Donald Trump, who had foolishly given credence to Moscow’s assessments on bilateral issues over those of his intelligence agencies, making the West squirm. But the choreographed personal insult led Mr Putin to withdraw the Russian ambassador in Washington and a tit-for-tat recall of the American ambassador followed. The dyke in relations widened. In this background, the course that the intense three-hour long conversation between the two leaders with their key foreign policy and national security aides in tow, can only be viewed positively — more than just a glass half-full.

At separate press conferences, they confirmed this. Mr Biden used “positive” and “good” to describe the event. Mr Putin, responding to an ambush question from a prominent US news outlet, denied that the talks were marked with “hostility”, and said the leaders had a “constructive” conversation. Both Presidents called the outcome “pragmatic”. Mr Biden also said that Russia was not looking for “a new Cold War”. A “joint communiqué” issued after the separate press conferences noted that talks will commence on restoring “strategic stability” in order to prevent unintentional conflict. At their meeting, the two leaders decided to send back their ambassadors. This is important in conducting state-to-state relations.

An important American concern was met when the Presidents agreed to institute a committee of experts to look into the issue of cyber-attacks that the US has attacked Russia for, including in meddling with its elections. Mr Biden wisely indicated that “the proof of the pudding was in the eating” and that it would become clear in a relatively short time if Moscow meant business on this. It appears the leaders of America and Russia have hinted at being constructive in dealing with trouble spots such as Afghanistan and Libya, although Syria can be more difficult.

Mr Biden was adroit. He took Mr Putin for what he was and was not out to change him or Russia, but rather to reach preferred goals. Mr Putin quoted Tolstoy to suggest “there is no happiness in life, there is only a mirage on the horizon, so cherish that”. This is a realistic start. If US-Russia hostilities remain restricted, a country like India can have a broader bandwidth to operate in.

Mr Biden was adroit. He took Mr Putin for what

he was and was not out to change him or Russia, but

rather to reach preferred goals.