The diplomatic channel between the Russian Federation and the United States, at least the bilateral dialogue, will be through the energy channel. That exchange began to take shape this week with the meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in Iceland’s capital Reykjavik. This was preceded by a day of tension – a product of eternal suspicion and mutual demonization – that seems to be the standard procedure of diplomatic, military and political elites in both Washington and Moscow. It is not surprising; in geopolitics the life of the powers and superpowers depends on having the other – adversary – well defined. There is little room for significant change in these dynamics. However, the fact that there is even a dialogue is a cautiously positive omen. What is the background?
The relationship between Russians and Americans partly reflects old burdens of bipolarization, hallmark of the Cold War. Some cannot transcend it: Russia as a perennial adversary, it is fitting, gives simplicity to its analysis and the conjuncture for the continued demonization of Moscow and the unconditional exaltation of Washington. It will always be much more complicated. At the head of the Russian government there is an ideology of national exaltation that seeks above all to keep Putin firm in the domestic sphere – and his rivals at bay – and preserve vital space in its territorial immediacy. It also seeks to continue to be a relevant actor in geopolitics, which leads it to support the Assad government in Syria, not only to have a strategic presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, but to create – maintain, rather – a buffer (‘buffer’ ) in the mega-region of the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea and Central Asia, all for the sake of their national security and keeping Chechen insurgents at bay.
The United States, on the other hand, seeks to repair the laceration in its reputation, a product of the dramatic turns in its foreign policy that the previous administration promoted. This, in turn, is the result of an introspective gaze that both facilitated a continuous — sometimes unsuccessful — attempt at isolationism, as well as a nativist attitude in economics. Beyond the discomforts of allies and trading partners and the increase in animosity between rivals in this process, the global public perception of the US sustained a blow. The latter was the motivation of President Biden in the foreign policy speech he delivered at the State Department on February 4; the intention was realized on April 13 with the phone call between Biden and Putin, and more recently on May 19, at the aforementioned bilateral meeting of Blinken and Lavrov in Reykjavik.
What the Putin-Biden summit will produce in the short, medium and long term remains to be seen. And while it is true that there are factions in both governments that regard the confrontation between the two powers as critically vital, diplomatic rapprochement and bilateral cooperation require consideration. The lowest denominator: the energy issue. The withdrawal of US sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 company, which oversees the construction of the gas pipeline that would bring natural gas to the European Union, was preceded by the Biden administration’s distinction of considering the cyber attack on its own pipeline, the Colonial Pipeline, in recent weeks as the work of a criminal consortium not necessarily linked to the Kremlin. In diplomacy, vague language like the one we have just read opens spaces; While it is true that US cybersecurity – I have written this before – is closely tied to its national security scaffolding, turning the page on this particular issue makes cooperation possible on other lines.
Biden and Putin’s face to face is getting closer. Coordination in areas of common interest, Syria in particular, deserves consideration. A mutual softening of language would also go a long way, in an atmosphere of friendliness subject to verification. Neither of the two powers is a paragon of virtues, but coordination on nuclear non-proliferation, counterterrorism and medical scientific research – despite the lapses during the pandemic – will be necessary for the sake of tranquility – temporary, at least. of the global political pulse.
– .
