Security policy US tries to get Russia to retreat so Putin doesn’t lose face – Cold War legend can help

Washington

When Russia and the United States will begin talks in Geneva on Monday, with a contradiction on the table that could be very difficult to resolve.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has demanded that NATO’s military alliance commit itself not to expand eastwards. It has also called on NATO to withdraw its talk that Ukraine and Georgia could become members of the military alliance. List of so-called security guarantees is long.

Much of Russia’s goals are known to be impossible and not even negotiated.

What is the United States aiming for on Monday? What would be the outcome it could be happy with?

Of the United States president Joe Biden has very directly and repeatedly stated that the main goal of his administration is to defuse tensions. In practice, this means that Russia will withdraw or at least significantly reduce its forces on the Ukrainian border and soften its rhetoric.

Like Russia’s goals, these are likely to be oversized. Withdrawal without concessions would be a loss of prestige for Putin.

For the United States, succeeding in this situation could mean coming up with a natural way to get Russia to retreat, says the professor. Garret Martin. He works at American University and specializes in transatlantic relations and security issues.

“Putin should be able to declare himself a winner, after which he could withdraw. However, this is difficult to achieve without making too many concessions, ”says Martin. Biden himself would suffer.

At the same time, the United States must be careful not to step on the toes of its European allies and create the impression that the United States and Russia are negotiating security in Ukraine and in Europe as a whole without involving them in the discussions. This would give rise to evil blood that would ultimately serve Putin’s purposes.

Great a breakthrough from Monday’s meeting is not expected.

The presidents of both countries last held a bilateral debate in December and made no significant progress. Negotiations are now taking place between the Deputy Foreign Ministers, Wendy R. Shermanin and Sergei Ryabkov, between.

Read more: Biden and Putin talked on the phone for almost an hour, Putin said new sanctions would be a “giant mistake”

In the previous meeting, Biden outlined two possible ways out of the current crisis: a diplomatic path towards easing or another that would lead to “serious consequences”.

Typically, the Biden administration has consciously tended to be a little cryptic about the actual nature of the consequences, Professor Martin says.

During the weekend US media however, recounted their sources in more detail plans, which the US has developed in case Russia refuses to withdraw. Biden’s aides described the intent as “making Putin know exactly what’s ahead.”

The consequences would include much tougher economic sanctions, a ban on exports of technology manufactured or planned in the Americas to Russia, and arms shipments to Ukraine. Foreign minister Antony Blinken has described the economic consequences as “enormous” – perhaps in contrast to the sanctions imposed and still in place after the conquest of Crimea, which have not just instantaneousized Putin.

Russian and the situation between the West was recently referred to by the President of the Republic Sauli Niinistö in his New Year’s speech. He quoted a longtime diplomat and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger as follows:

“While avoiding war has been the top goal of some states, the international system has been at the mercy of its most ruthless member.”

Read more: Read President Niinistö’s speech word for word here

In his speech, Niinistö also stated that this can be measured in the dialogue between the great powers starting on Monday – he linked Kissinger’s idea directly to the current crisis.

Kissinger, who served as foreign minister during the Cold War in the 1970s, was best known for his real-political thinking, which could be exacerbated by the idea of ​​“destroying means”. Among other things, he thought that ideological controversies could be sidelined if this made it possible to achieve greater goals. National interests took precedence over everything, including ethics and morals where necessary.

At the same time, he was known as an exceptionally skilled negotiator who was able to have difficult discussions even in extremely sensitive situations.

Niinistö has not himself revealed in more detail his decision to quote Kissinger or why he considered his thoughts worth quoting right now. One reason may simply be that men have exchanged ideas a lot – they have met in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2021.

In Finland, for example, Niinistö was interpreted as HS in the editorial meant that the West must be prepared to use force against Russia if necessary.

In the US media there has been some reflection on whether the United States has shown itself strong enough in front of Russia. However, hardly anyone hopes for the actual marching of US troops into Ukraine, says Professor Martin – President Niinistö also hardly referred to it.

Would be Kissinger’s thinking during the Cold War then more broadly drawn right now?

Martin thinks it is worth being careful when trying to apply old doctrines to the current crisis. He points out that the sentence quoted by Niinistö comes from Kissinger’s dissertation, which dealt with the re-creation of the European order after the Napoleonic Wars.

“Is it worth comparing the situation in Europe 200 years ago to the present? I’m not sure.”

Martin, on the other hand, believes that Biden actually follows several of the same doctrines as Kissinger when serving as president. Richard Nixonin in the administration in the 1970s: he pursues agile diplomacy, believes in the importance of bilateral discussions, and thinks it is important to stay in touch with enemies as well, not just friends.

“

Nothing has been offered to Russia.

However, the problem with this analogy is that one key aspect is missing.

“Kissinger sought to weave a kind of dependency on the Soviet Union that would benefit both parties. He thought that by offering carrots to suit each situation, it would be possible to influence the behavior of the Soviet Union. ”

The problem now, according to Martin, is that nothing has been offered to Russia. On the other hand, it is not even clear what kind of carrot would be suitable for Russia.

Putin has built his domestic support largely on anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism, and he is therefore not interested in improving the gap.

And when it doesn’t really interest the United States, the situation is frozen.

Just 98-year-old Kissinger, who is still involved in foreign policy debates, warned in a report to The Economist in an interview last year. He criticized the West for not even pursuing a serious dialogue with Russia since the conquest of Crimea in 2014. He considered it a very “stateless” behavior and warned of the consequences.

Kissinger was a firm believer in the need to negotiate, but on the other hand, in the final games, only Russia itself could solve Russia’s problems.

The risk is that the talks starting on Monday will end with Russia announcing that its security concerns have not been addressed. It could then use the “failure of negotiations” as a justification for military action.

The ball is now in Russia, Professor Martin also thinks.

“Putin has been driving this crisis, and ultimately he has to decide whether he wants to retreat or not. Biden’s administration doesn’t have many good options. ”