Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden have signaled their willingness to hold face-to-face talks on the sidelines of the G20 summit, which will take place in Indonesia in mid-November.
It is unlikely that the two heads of state who are indirectly opposed to each other in the Ukraine war will meet in the near future. However, the cautious signals from Washington and Moscow suggest that the possibility of talks is at least being considered – and that the scope for a political dialogue is growing.
Biden had indirectly approached the Russian President several times in the past few days. Most recently, Biden said that he would not refuse a personal exchange.
He currently has no intention of meeting with Putin, Biden said in an interview with the US broadcaster CNN, which was broadcast on Tuesday. “But if he came to me at the G20 summit, for example, and said I wanted to talk about Griner’s release, I would meet him,” Biden said. “I mean, it depends.”
Biden was referring to US basketball player Brittney Griner, who has been imprisoned in Russia for months. The two-time Olympic gold medalist was sentenced to an unusually long prison term for drug possession in early August. Biden called the guilty verdict unacceptable and repeatedly called for their release (read more here).
His statements promptly fueled speculation that there could also be talks about the war in Ukraine. Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had suggested a meeting between the two presidents – if Washington were to offer it. According to Lavrov, the Kremlin would also be ready to “listen to any proposals for peace talks”.
The White House suddenly as a petitioner? Biden’s spokeswoman then more or less conceded a possible meeting at the G20 summit. She also practically ruled out a personal conversation about the release of basketball player Griner.
Biden “does not intend to meet with President Putin,” Karine Jean-Pierre replied when asked if Washington and Moscow were in exchange for a talk. The president firmly believes that Russia must either “accept or make a serious counter-offer” to the “serious offer” that the US has put on the table in the Griner case, Jean-Pierre said on Wednesday.
The fact that a dialogue between the presidents could take place at a later date is of course not off the table. The rhetorical back and forth could be an indication that Washington and Moscow want to explore their mutual willingness to talk and are cautiously approaching a future exchange.
For example, Putin’s foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, responded with diplomatic ambiguity when asked about Biden’s comment that he might consider meeting with the Russian president. “I can say for Russia that we will never give up negotiations and all useful international contacts,” Ushakov said on Wednesday.
While you would never refuse an outstretched hand, he said, “if we feel that a partner doesn’t want to meet for one reason or another, we don’t push ourselves.”
It is not apparent that Biden is willing to negotiate Ukraine’s territorial integrity. “I have no intention, nor is anyone willing, to negotiate with Russia on whether they stay in Ukraine or keep any part,” he told CNN, reiterating the West’s general position on the conflict. What was remarkable, however, was his statement that he considered Putin to be a “rational actor”, even though he “miscalculated considerably” on his campaign. An appeal to reason?
Just a few days ago, Biden had warned of a nuclear “Armageddon” and sent a vague and unequivocal message to the Russian President that the use of nuclear weapons would have devastating consequences for his country (read more here). Biden provided his warning, which is in line with classic deterrence policy, with a meaningful comparison to the Cuban Missile Crisis in the Cold War.
At the time, the USA and the Soviet Union were heading for a nuclear exchange. Eventually, the two-week conflict was resolved through negotiations. Not least because the then US President John F. Kennedy always kept in touch with Moscow via confidential channels and was careful to avoid an unwanted escalation.
Biden also seems to be following this approach. It is not known whether there are corresponding channels of discussion at a high level. However, the statements suggest that Biden increasingly sees them as necessary given the current war situation.
After several failures by the Russian army, President Putin is increasingly under (successful) pressure, and criticism of his conduct of the war is growing. Against this background, the brutal bombardment of civilian infrastructure was taken as a sign of his “powerlessness”, after all his escalation options – before the greatest possible nuclear escalation – had largely been exhausted, say military analysts (read more about this here). Furthermore, Russia is largely isolated in the world, as shown by the surprisingly unequivocal vote by the UN General Assembly against Putin’s sham votes in Ukraine.
What could Putin’s “off-ramp” be? President Biden also thought aloud about this when he conjured up nuclear “Armageddon”. “Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself losing not only his face but his power?” The USA will not therefore reduce its support for Ukraine; the opposite is the case. However, the public deliberations in the White House show that one considers talks in the not too distant future to be necessary – and one does not categorically refuse them. This increases the space for political dialogue.
Quellen: CNN, “Politico”, Reuters, “The Hill”, “The Guardian”
