Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 12, 2021

Why Is There A Biden-Putin Summit And What Is It Supposed To Achieve?

On June 16 the Presidents of Russia and the United States will hold talks:

Biden ends the trip Wednesday with summit in Geneva with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. The White House announced Saturday that the leaders will not hold a joint news conference after meeting, removing the opportunity for comparisons to the availability that followed Trump and Putin’s 2018 Helsinki summit in which Trump sided with Moscow over his own intelligence agencies.

Aides have suggested that the U.S. did not want to elevate Putin further by having the two men appear together in such a format. Others have expressed concern that Putin could try to score points on Biden, 78, who will be in the final hours of a grueling eight-day European trip.

The real reason for not holding a joint press conference is of course that a senile Biden is likely to brabble some nonsense and ruin the summit spin his minders want to put out there.

The U.S. initiated the summit which comes early in Biden's presidency. The not yet answered question is why, and what the U.S. wants to achieve with it?

The short answer, discussed in length below, is that:

  1. The U.S. wants to take on China. The U.S. recognized that it can not take on China and Russia simultaneously. Russia must thus be split from its China alliance and brought back into Europe.
  2. Russia's new strategic weapon systems may enable a first strike on the U.S. A new strategic arms agreement is the only way to avert that existential threat. (It would also save a lot of money.)

Both of these strategic aims are unlikely to get achieved because the U.S. foreign policy community is still misjudging the global situation as well as Russia's strength and position. It wants the summit to fail.

Now the long version.

In an essay published on his email list Prof. Michael Brenner, a regular reader of Moon of Alabama, gives his answer to our questions:

Biden, long the absentee overseer of Ukraine under Obama, backed a plan to put an end to the secessionist, Russified provinces of Lugansk and Donetsk in the Donbass. It was seen as a way to discipline Vladimir Putin whose interference in Syria and blood-minded actions elsewhere irritated American policy-makers, to complete Russia’s isolation (along with an overthrow of the Belarus government), and to solidify NATO/EU control of the European continent.

Washington expanded its program of arming and training the Ukrainian army arm and militias (including the neo-Nazi Azov battalion), gave President (and ex-comedian) President Vladimir Zielenski the green light to move his military to the contact line, and led an orchestrated denunciation of Russia and all its work loudly reinforced by the ever-obedient chorus of European dependents. Biden himself struck the tone in declaring that Putin was a ‘killer.’ It was classic coercion via military intimidation – although hardly classic in insulting your opponent unless you follow up with a bugle call for attack. The entire project is now in ruins – a miserable failure. The ‘why’ carries heavy – if unrecognized – lessons.

The Kremlin had given clear signs that it no longer was going to turn the other cheek to what it saw as hostile, belittling Western moves. The eastward expansion of NATO right to Russia’s border, the Washington approved Georgian assault on South Ossetia by American trained/advised forces, the color revolutions culminating in the American instigated Nuland coup in Kiev that toppled a democratically elected President, undocumented accusations of meddling in the tranquil waters of American politics, the repeated sanctions, the relentless campaign to sabotage Nordstrom II etc. etc. Those clear signs were ignored, as are all other facts that don’t conform with the self-serving, self-deluding Washington narrative. There, gross misinterpretations of conditions in Russia prevail.

They truly believe that Navalny is the country’s great white hope when in truth his modest support lies only among the liberal intelligensia of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Putin’s popularity, especially in regard to relations with the West, is undiminished. The public fully backs Putin. Moreover, he is at the ’soft’ end of a continuum among political elites - including officials within his government. Hence, his response to the renewed threat to the Donbass was quick and decisive. He deployed 75,000 heavily armed army units with supporting air power to the border while Lavrov stated baldly that any offensive by the Ukrainians would be met with overwhelming force, and that would mean the destruction of the current Ukrainian regime.

The call up of a five divisions strong battle ready force within 10 days, which NATO is unable to match in size and speed, had the desired effects:

The United States and its allies had no counter; they had to back down. Within days, Biden made an impromptu call to ‘killer’ Putin calling for a relaxing of tensions while looking forward to stable, predictable relations between their two countries. That week, Blinken flew to Kiev to bluntly tell Zelenski to call it all off. If that meant throwing him to the ultra-nationalist wolves in Kiev, he always had his comedian gig to fall back on. Great power politics as burlesque!

There was a dawning awareness that contending with a fully aroused Russia, in Europe and elsewhere, was no piece of cake. It followed that the United States should not be conducting all-out ‘Cold War’ with China and Russia simultaneously. Since China was the much greater challenger to American global hegemony, somehow working out a tacit modus vivendi, or, at least, ceasefire, with Moscow was called for. That should have been obvious for at least the past 12 years to anyone with a strategic brain. Instead, American leaders had done everything possible to solidify a Sino-Russian alliance as has materialized in their ‘strategic partnership’ which grows in strength and confidence by the day.
The abject failure in Ukraine (simultaneously with the thwarted attempt to overthrow Lukashenko in Belarus) shook Washington’s unbounded self-confidence enough for it to recognize the error of its ways.

A series of moves in Europe signaled the intention to change course. The announced dispatch of a naval battle group to the Black Sea was summarily cancelled, pressure on Germany to prevent the completion of Nordstrom II was lifted, and the plans for a Ukrainian attack on the Donbass was abruptly dumped. Biden clearly intends next week’s meeting with Putin in Geneva as a crucial step paving the way for a tempering of the hostility that has marked relations between Washington and Moscow. The hope is that the gestures noted above combined with an expressed readiness to work together on handful of contentious issues can mollify Russian antagonism toward the West. That, in turn, could cool its enthusiasm for the strategic partnership with Beijing – making it easier for the U.S. to concentrate on its struggle for global supremacy with China while weakening the latter’s hand.

The ploy is doomed to failure.

It indeed is. The last 30 years have shown that Russia can absolutely not trust Washington whatever it might promise. Its partnership with China though is solid.

A quote in a recent New York Times piece seems to confirm Brenner's take:

Charles A. Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown University who worked on European affairs in the Obama administration, said Mr. Biden’s goal was to head off the creation of a Sino-Russian bloc against the West. That will require the help of allies, which is why he predicted Mr. Biden would not only listen to, but hear, the Europeans.

Russia analyst Gilbert Doctorow has a slightly different take:

[W]hy is Joe Biden pressing ahead with a meeting so early in his tenure in office? We are told that the objective is to achieve “greater stability” in bilateral relations. But I have not heard from our commentators what stability is to be addressed.
In my reductionist approach, the summit has one driver behind it, namely to put a cap on an arms race that the United States is losing, if it has not already irrevocably lost, and to prevent the adverse shift in the strategic balance against America from getting still worse. The side benefit would be to strike down planned military expenditures budgeted for well over a trillion dollars to modernize the nuclear triad alone. This would thereby free funds for the massive infrastructure investments that Biden is presently trying to push through Congress.
Since the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2002 under George Bush, US policy had aimed at enabling a first strike knocking out Russian ICBMs and then rendering useless Russia’s residual nuclear forces which could be shot out of the air by U.S. anti-ballistic missile systems. Russia’s new, maneuverable and ultra-high speed missiles could evade all known ABMs. According to Putin’s text in March 2018, the new Russian strategic arms relegated the hundreds of billions that the Americans had invested in achieving superiority to the status of a modern day Maginot Line. Whatever Washington could throw at Russia, the residual Russian forces would penetrate American defenses and wreak havoc on the American homeland.

Russia's new weapons are something that Washington can only dream of. Announced in 2018 the new systems are now being introduced in frontline units. U.S. weapon development is at least 10 years behind Russia's. Nuclear parity has been restored (vid).

Some of Russia's new system do not fall under the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty. If the U.S. does not manage to achieve a new agreement with Russia that limits its new weapon systems, Russia could soon achieve first strike capability. This would be an existential threat to the U.S. The Pentagon is surely not happy about the situation.

That Biden needs to get a new strategic arms agreement as fast as possible may indeed be the reason why the summit is happening so early.

Unfortunately a success, says Doctorow, is far from guaranteed:

Mutual respect is what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has demanded as a starting point for diplomatic negotiations with the Americans. Respect is not conferred on an interlocutor “from a position of strength,” the typical American approach to such talks.

The problem for Washington is that no one on Capitol Hill or in the foreign policy community wants to acknowledge the obvious facts about Russia today. Everyone is happy with the vision of a slovenly, chaotic Russia ruled by a merciless dictator, whose regime is fragile and just needs a little push, like Nicholas II’s autocracy, to tilt over and collapse. This is rubbish and if it remains the foundation of U.S. policy towards Russia under Biden then we can expect nothing much to happen to reduce the dangers of nuclear war or move towards calmer waters in international relations.

An example of the foreign policy community Doctorow describes is the former U.S. ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker who wants the summit to fail:

It is surely not in the interests of the U.S., the EU, NATO, and other allies to see a summit in which Putin leaves convinced that he has blunted the United States and faces no consequences for his behavior. It would send a signal globally that authoritarians can get away with aggressive acts at home and abroad, and that the U.S. and the West will not take any meaningful action to stop them.
For the U.S., therefore, the best possible outcome is not one of modest agreements and a commitment to “predictability,” but one of a lack of agreements altogether. Success is confrontation.

The Canadian professor Paul Robinson takes aim at such lunacy but concludes:

Now, you might say that this is just one guy’s opinion. We can ignore it. It doesn’t mean anything. But Volker isn’t just some guy. From 2017 to 2019, he was the US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations – so in effect America’s point guy for its relationship with Ukraine and for negotiations concerning a peace settlement for that country’s civil war. On the basis of this article, one shudders to think what advice he was giving the Ukrainian government. Certainly not advice conducive to peace, I imagine. It’s more than a little scary.

So, this is more than just one man. This article is a window into the way that an influential part of the American foreign policy establishment thinks. It rejects negotiation. It regards compromise as dangerous. It openly prefers conflict. “Success is confrontation” – the worse the better. Wow!

As long as they help to prevent war I am happy about each and every summit between superpowers. But I do not expect any great results from this one. U.S. policies do not turn on a dime and the borg is currently far from accepting compromises to which Russia can agree.

Posted by b on June 12, 2021 at 17:03 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

More stumbling is Sevastopol, even though this is old stuff it says a lot, first about the empire intentions with their cookie Maidan, and then their cowardice to hide a tender that could not be, by the Dept. of the Navy. The guys saw themselves pleasantly quartered and strolling the waterfront of the peninsula, for a bagful of bagles, or cookies or whatever crap the inefable Nuland was passing around.

The problem is, nothing forgotten, nothing forgiven...

School Nº5

Posted by: Paco | Jun 13 2021 10:08 utc | 101

aquadraht | Jun 13 2021 9:53 utc | 99

I believe the correct term for the Russian-Ukrainian sociolects is Surzhyk.

Posted by: Jay | Jun 13 2021 10:35 utc | 102

Paco | Jun 13 2021 10:08 utc | 101

Although I knew that the US had sent in divers (seals?) to measure Sevastopol and choose the best infrastructure for themselves, I hadn't realised they had plans for future generations as well. Priceless.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jun 13 2021 10:45 utc | 103

@99 Jay
Ok, the "correct" transliteration of Суржик is indeed rather Surshi[y]k. Transliterations are always a mess :).

Posted by: aquadraht | Jun 13 2021 11:15 utc | 104

There are formal agreements with signed documents and the accompanying fanfare. There are routine interactions and minutia, including trade and the work of embassies and consulates. Finally, there's the laying of cards on the table and clarifying non-negotiable positions.

We're very unlikely to see results in the first category, especially on the first meeting, but there's no reason to exclude the initiation of ground work on several agreements, for instance in cyber security or on the arctic. Getting the ball rolling for negotiations on major agreements costs nothing, is a constructive use of time and gives the heads of state the opportunity to conduct some non-invasive information gathering about one another, without fully committing to anything. Results in statements under the heading 'talked about ' and 'productive' conversations.

There can be substantial progress in the second category without the accompanying public attention -- i.e we wouldn't necessarily be informed of any deals or agreements. It's a productive field for bartering, on some issues, but also includes aspects which are vital and of mutual interest, such as deconfliction mechanisms and fields of cooperation between intelligence services. I believe there is a mutual interest to restore the foreign missions and diplomatic corps to some semblance of its former self, and Biden would probably be able to sell it as necessary for a more 'predictable' relationship with Russia to domestic audiences, so if I had to wager on any publicized 'break-through' -- that would be it.

As for the third category, it's a very useful tool to influence decision making, although it never gets mentioned in polite diplomatic discourse or necessarily formalized as a document or verbal agreement. The drawing of red lines and explicit clarification of consequences for crossing the same may force the head of state to rethink the foreign policy objectives of his country, or the strategy for attaining them. Paramount to this is leaving enough room for face-saving maneuvers and thus not committing the faux pas of being open about the warnings or advice proffered in private. Again, I believe this to be an invaluable opportunity, no matter the perceived odds of bringing successful results, but we in the public can only guess as to exactly what has been said and which subsequent decisions may have been influenced by it.

To summarize, I believe there is potential for a productive exchange here, as there always is, and that it would be short-sighted to dismiss the possibility out of hand. The problem, if anything, has more to do with unrealistic expectations. My impression is that many people compare realistically attainable results with alternate realities where media headlines scream of a break-through in relations and US-Russia dynamics turning on a dime, devaluing the former to worthlessness. You wouldn't quit your job on the basis that a winning lottery ticket, which you obviously are very unlikely to find, outranks your wages.

Posted by: Skiffer | Jun 13 2021 11:23 utc | 105

For future info. Russian army build-up to date (although the title could possibly be "coming soon". Not sure about the actual amounts today) in Russia and around Ukraine/Donbas and Crimea.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jun 13 2021 11:24 utc | 106

I'm not at all sure all the optimism is warranted, I have been watching the evil clown show for far too long to be optimistic regarding the intentions of the US government. I think the mistake is assuming that rational behaviour is to be expected from the US leadership (I'm not talking of the elected clown show btw but the real rulers of the US) The real rulers of the US have all but destroyed the US already in a global domination or bust initiative and are currently fostering a race war. Rather than asking what a rational actor would do, it would be more appropriate to ask what Caligula or Nero would do.

Best case scenario imo a few nods in the direction of arms treaties but only where it definitely benefits the US rather than the RF.

More likely Biden will be announcing after the summit that Putin has refused to stop beating his wife, cyber-attacking US infrastructure, spreading disinformation, violating human rights etc.

Worst case scenario a 'plausibly deniable' assassination attempt on Putin, on the totally wrong assumption that the RF government is all about one man.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US 'deep state' is currently poring over numerology texts at this very moment, trying to divine the best approach.

Posted by: MarkU | Jun 13 2021 11:34 utc | 107

Excellent article, good to see the author back in his field of undeniable expertise rather than meddling in medical issues.

As I see it from my amateur POV Russia was a natural partner for the West, its inclusion would have left the Chinese much weaker militarily. Russia shares a long border with China and they have always been watchful of their neighbor, particularly as they known darn well the Chinese would like their annexed land returned.

The stupidity of the West has allowed the two to kiss and make up, although for how long is yet to be seen.

Posted by: Gravel Rash | Jun 13 2021 11:54 utc | 108

Skiffer @Jun13 11:23 #105

You forgot the grandstanding for propaganda purposes.

Biden will tell us about how he challenged 'killer Putin' on Russia's poisoning of Navalny, Russia's belligerence towards Ukraine, Russia's support for Belarus airplane hijackers, Russia's support for the heinous dictator in Syria, and Russia's alliance with cold-hearted Chinese human rights violators.

Western press will report (10+ paragraphs down) that Putin merely complained about NATO missions around Russian borders and bashed USA internal problems in a classic misunderstanding of how democracy works.

IMO that's why they need two press conferences. They will never agree to a joint statement because this meeting is not about conducting business, its about propaganda.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 13 2021 12:10 utc | 109

Posted by: m | Jun 13 2021 6:57 utc | 92

>>Russia doesn`t have the capabilities to destroy Ukraine.

Have you ever seen a map in your life? The capitol of Kiev is pretty close to the russian border.

As for population attitudes, Some 41% of Ukrainians expressed a positive attitude toward Russians in February 2021, while about the same share, or 42%, expressed a negative attitude.

Ukraine's independence from Russia is backed by 88% of Ukrainians and 80% of Russians, while 7% of Ukrainians and 17% of Russians want Ukraine's accession to Russia.

A total of 39% of Ukrainians want closed borders with Russia (against 23% of Russians), while the share of Ukrainians who want independent relations, but without borders and customs, is 49%

So the staunchly anti-Russian ukrainians do not want to join Russia (russians do not want that either - no one wants to pay Ukraine's bills), but at the same time a 49 % of ukrainians want to remove the borders and customs with Russia, vs a minority who opposes that. This, btw, is what the situation in the Customs Union (EAEU) is.

Now use your head and think about the numbers in Eastern Ukraine alone.

Posted by: Passer by | Jun 13 2021 12:11 utc | 110

As I see it from my amateur POV Russia was a natural partner for the West, its inclusion would have left the Chinese much weaker militarily. Russia shares a long border with China and they have always been watchful of their neighbor, particularly as they known darn well the Chinese would like their annexed land returned.

The stupidity of the West has allowed the two to kiss and make up, although for how long is yet to be seen.

Posted by: Gravel Rash | Jun 13 2021 11:54 utc | 108

This is mythologized narrative. First and foremost, one has to deconstruct the concept of "partner". On one hand, we got global economy, something that did not exist 40 years ago, and there are plenty of mutual dependencies and opportunities for Mutually Assured Economic Destruction. Modern products have multiple inputs and their production can be hindered by multiple parties. Drastic cuts in economic exchange can create pain for everybody, raising the question which societies are better posed to withstand the pain if "the push comes to shove".

The second issue is how "the West" treats its fully approved partners, including the requirements, and what is the worth and the price of that status. The West is definitely dominant, but (a) stagnant (b) price of membership is steep, and rewards diminishing.

The third issue is that there is no way one can consider China and Russia as a block. The coordination is ad hock if any. China, Russia and Iran interact rather normally, exchanging goods and agreements when both sides see benefit, and not if not. For some quaint reasons, this is not like "the West" wishes the world to operate.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 13 2021 12:19 utc | 111

In a meeting like the one we discuss, it is important that the sides have some common language that allows to exchange proposals, sketch agreements etc. In that context, I wonder what is the distinction of "babble" and "brabble", according to b, Biden speaks brabble, so he will need a translator fluently providing his meanings in a language used in official international discourse.

Are proper specialists already prepared? For example, presidential spokesperson Psaki is herself communicating in a dialect, perhaps a variant of brabble.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 13 2021 12:34 utc | 112

NATO is not a cash-cow for the MICC (Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex),
it is not an instrument of hegemony
and warmongering latent-fascists and Zionists,
no, it is the tip-of-the-spear in the battle against climate change.

How is that for putting a good face on a serial killer?

Here is the article for good boys and girls, it is designed to be read and to turn sheeple brains into sheep dip.

Facing a battle against global warming, NATO has for the first time made it a central focus of planning and strategy.

Posted by: librul | Jun 13 2021 13:15 utc | 113

@110 Passer by
Thanks for the numbers.

">>Russia doesn`t have the capabilities to destroy Ukraine.

Have you ever seen a map in your life? The capitol of Kiev is pretty close to the russian border."

The Russian military can certainly occupy Kiev. But what then?

Posted by: m | Jun 13 2021 13:45 utc | 114

Thanks B, your article questioning the BP Summit was expertly done..

Don Bacon @ 4 Bottom line: the US security state needs Russia as a continuing enemy. <=yes

by: karlof1 @ 8 The plea to Trump that he refused from the domestic uranium mining corps was a very signal event very hushed up <= thanks what is that plea.. exactly ? thanks for the reference to it.. but can you explain it in great detail, please?

by: karlof1 @ 8 much of that 20% [structurally unemployed] having been fucked over and left for dead are voting with their not returning to normal jobs ... Industrial Capitalism and actual regulation must return for the USA to have a chance geopolitically, but the Parasites are firmly against that now that they're fat and growing fatter.
<= well done, fantastic analysis.. it would be a simple matter to deny the parasites their fodder all that would need be done is to eliminate copy write law and patent laws .. and deny the government the right to grant to private corporations any work or to produce any product the government needs. over night the parasites would be removed..

Hoyeru @ 9 "As long as there is CHAOS [nation state system] wins by NOT losing. <=CHAOS occurs when a nation is divided by binaries." Division of a nation by polarized binaries is the essence of divide to Conquer.

Clueless Joe @ 11, Sovereign immunity makes prisoners of those who are the governed in any nation. <=Explains why the only global government should by independent of all of the nation states and their governments and their international bargains and treaties. Humanity and the rights of mankind must remain transparent to the sovereigns who rule the nation states. Independent courts, independent laws, with focus not on=> those who are to be the governed by the governors of the nation states, but with focus on regulating and punishing the behaviors of those who are the governors in each of the nation states.

James @ 17 says The more mortal enemies abroad, the easier to manage internal affairs.' <= right on.. until the false flag Covid 19 lock-down it worked, but many many people have since wakened to the threat to their independence and to their way of life the nation state system presents to them. Covid 19 exposed the risk to humanity the nation state system poses. when the nation states acted as a system and engaged in a system wide false flag lock-down. Changes are in the works few still believe MSM. Nearly everyone continues to watch the MSM in order to discover and therefore be able to avoid the each new narrative, the MSM is distributing.

Mar man @ 18 says: "Putin and Lavrov have reportedly declared the entire US government not agreement capable. I think you will find most Americans agree with Putin and Lavrov.? The USA controls America because the USA is a Republican vs a Democrat domestic binary, A seesaw of sorts.

Deep South @ 20 "American, EU and Asian multinationals have invested 100s of billions of dollars in China. These investors will not allow the US government to do ANYTHING that jeopardises those investments." <= I agree.. the only way to stop this to eliminate the power of the investors at the source (copyright, patent and government contracts). of their rape of humanity.

by: James2 @ 26 Going to meet someone who insults you and your country - it quite frankly shameful <= What makes sense: it is the interest of the deep state, not that of the leaders of either of the two nation states. justifies and explains the reason for this meeting.

by: steven t johnson @28 blithe unawareness of real problems larded in with blind adulation of this or that savior. <= Yes, the problem is not between nation states, nor within the nation states, but is vested in monopoly powers made effective against all comers world wide. These monopoly powers were generated by rule of law, within the various nation states, but now reside, as private property, in the exclusive ownership of the oligarchs. It is these unseen oligarchs, with powers derived from their control over the entire nation state system that are the problem; the monopoly powered Oligarchs direct the interactions and define the relationships between each nation state. I have suggested your present argument here many times.. the job of the MSM is to keep those who are the governed in the dark, use make up enemies and made up objectives and reasons, to hide the Oligarch manipulation of the entire of the nation state system. Each of the 256 nation states is manipulated by a central core of Oligarchs and their abilities to do that is dependent on a intelligence system that is fully interlaced between the various nation states.

by: Steven T. Johnson @ 49 ".. The people having rights, majority rule .." <= this is true as long as there are no binaries to separate the power of the people into polarized fashion.. so that net of the powers of the governed masses = (side a believers -sibe b believers) remains near zero.

The problem today is the nation state system. It is the most powerful control device the monopoly powered Oligarch have to defend themselves against the humanity they daily rape.

Psychohistorian @ 29 Empire knows it can't separate China and Russia but they can kick the can down the road a bit by effecting major leadership changes .. <=more like the unseen private American interest doing business from inside of China have spoken?

Cosham @ 34 the cancerous cleptocracy that rules the "west" <= It rules the east also..
gottlieb @ 35 "Yes, a circus…" <= right on. and ak74 @ 93 seems also to agree..

Rolf Werb @ 43 "Prediction:

The USA will enforce a long long cold war while being disassembled like a car by everyone involved, especially Americans." <= my take exactly,, The USA is dismantling America as fast as its MSM and communications carriers can make it happen.

Vk @ 74 There is no freedom of speech in the USA. They stonewall opinions that are contrary to its "national interests" through what seems to be a combination of an MSM cartel and an ubiquitous and well-oiled, well-polished, well-hidden State censorship machine. <=Yes, but it is the private monopoly powered media and communications companies owned by hidden Oligarchs that administer the denial of the bill of rights. The MSM blames the government, and the communications companies filter speech so the government is not in form responsible for the substance which is effected by private corporate monopoly power.

Posted by: snake | Jun 13 2021 13:49 utc | 115

Passer by, Jason and fyi on the allegedly unipolar world of 1900---because "EuroAmerican," aka white---ignore the existence of the Chinese empire, the Ottoman empire, the Ethiopian empire, the Japanese empire. The newness of the "American" part of "EuroAmerican" is an issue too, as decolonization of the Philippines was not a result of defeat in war, inexplicable by the simplistic notions. Such elementary errors are inevitable when ideology is used instead of honest analysis. Many of the underlying premises of Critical Race Theory, such as the repudiation of class analysis, are necessarily backward and reactionary. This is why being woke doesn't make you a leftist. (And why personal lapses into backward ideas don't necessarily make you a reactionary, maybe just inconsistent. But then, no one has perfect integrity, do they?) By the idiotic notion of white unipolarity, the Triple War is inexplicable.

And the Babylon stations were begun after Earth had won the Dilgar War *and* the Minbari war---the Minbari surrendered at the Battle of the Line, after all. Again, riding a hobbyhorse inevitably leads into a thicket of errors.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Jun 13 2021 14:04 utc | 116

In response to jackrabbit@109,

I didn't mention that part, since I don't seriously consider it as an end onto itself. This is a fine objective for domestic consumption, but the US doesn't need a summit with any foreign leaders to accomplish it, any more than Russia needs a face to face meeting in order to reiterate American trespasses in the international arena within the realm of its mass media. If the US administration truly needs Putin in order to bolster its pr effectiveness on domestic audiences, I can only express my concern for the deep trouble that they are in.

Two press conferences may also signal concessions that one side is unwilling to admit to in public, but is forced to recognize as unavoidable in private. I expect that the issue has more to do with coordination between the participants of permissible press credentials and questions, with one side worried of unintentionally giving out more information than would be appropriate. Although it's rather unorthodox, I presume the Russians are fine with it, since it avoids unnecessary shocks to the system and allows for a degree of 'insider trading.' That is, if there is any major reconfiguration, the Russian state is the first to know, while everyone else is left to read the US press release -- this aspect for sure hinges on the needs of domestic consumption and 'allies' while being a detriment to the US in terms of US-Russia power configuration.

Posted by: Skiffer | Jun 13 2021 15:18 utc | 117

@ Posted by: steven t johnson | Jun 13 2021 14:04 utc | 116

The concept of polarity doesn't apply to 1900. It's an anachronism.

We could classify the geopolitical situation of 1900 as such: it was "multipolar" in Europe + Japan + USA, but "unipolar" in the sense there was a clear two-tier system of "nations": empires and colonies. From the point of view of the colonized, all the imperialist powers in the tiny peninsula of Europe were obviously the same thing, but from the point of view of an empire, there was stiff and savage competition for the colonies in its neighborhood (i.e. the European Peninsula).

Long story short, the world of 1900 was multipolar from the point of view of a colonialist empire, but unipolar from the point of view of a colony. Let's just remember that in 1900 China was a colony, not an empire. This situation would quickly change after the foundation of the USSR, in 1917, after which the wave of emancipation of the colonies around the world started and grew quickly.

Posted by: vk | Jun 13 2021 15:39 utc | 118

In the nineteen-eighties, I had a friend in Bĕijing whose father was the chief archivist of Chinese CPC (party) and state leaders' discussions and speeches. Including supreme leader Dèng Xiǎopíng's admonitions on who to learn from in other nations about how to develop China into a reasonably well-off and reasonably fair society. His chagrines included that the Chinese foreign policy and economic planners did not learn from such stetehoods as the Nordic countries and the Netherlands and their welfare.based industialisation. SO, he had to go to Singapore and also then to emulate the US of North A.

Around 2003, I listened to a report by a Norwegian export council (Foreign Office) chap who had also represented Norway in Huston, Texas. Je explained the situation thus:

"Until now, we met a lot of obstacles when dealing with China. But now the US has contol over the flow along the import routes the Chinese get their oil from. So now the US has them (the Red Chinese) by their bowels and balls. So now we are allowed full spectrum trade with China in each and every field -- provided we are smart enough to understand their codes and trade culture."

I'm still not shure who he talked about with his last "their"-- Chinese business partners or the US of North A departmens of Trade and Tribulations, Attach and Boikott and Foreign Wierd Afaires -- any suggestions, anyone?

Posted by: Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 15:50 utc | 119

Reply to Stonebird @ 90:

"* You mean that the F-35 has a role, other than a walk on part in a B-series movie?"

Posted by: Stonebird | Jun 13 2021 6:38 utc | 90

My answer is threefold, after having seen F-35 demonstrations in the air at Scandinavian air shows some yeas ago:
(1) The F-35 is build in such a way that it can only carry US-made weapons and bombs.
(2) The F-35 is designed as a fast and ready attock bomber -- no matter that it will fail or get shot down on returning from first killing missions.
(3) Those F-35 killer planes supplied to Israël are very different critters from the two kinds listed above. One consideration being that their reach is limited to nearby countries and anorther type probably fit to reach Irân from Gulp states or Azerbaidjan.

Posted by: Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 16:23 utc | 120

Around 1900, there was a "multipolar world" to those imperialist powers that counted. Then Edward of England managed to seduce US ship Roosevelt and also France into his fold. And later (after thath) to see to it that the German-Russian-alliance came to an end. As German Bismark stated it when he got demoted: "If we are not allied witht Russia, any small crisis on the Balkans can erupt into a full-scale war conflagration all over Europe" -- which was the goal of all British strategic planning, and has so remained now for 130 years.

Posted by: Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 16:52 utc | 121

Mr. Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 15:50 utc | 119

The United States had had that control over many choke points of global trade for decades, what she did not have, and tried to have, was political control, like the British Empire, on the oil of Persian Gulf.

In 2003, it looked like they were on the path of repeating the British Empire's experience. But they failed. And they failed due to the changed local conditions since 1900 for the most part. That is, in Iran they faced a state and a population that they could not intimidate. And in Iraq, the population was sharply focused on oil wealth and would not concede any control to the faranji. Furthermore, both countries had entered, an era of mass-politics and US lacked (and lacks) the skills to deal with that phenomenon.

Techniques and Know-How have been seeping from the Euro-American world to the rest of mankind for the better part of 150 years. Newtonian Mechanics and Algebra are now understood and practiced by billions of non-Europeans and and non-Americans.

What was said by that Norwegian was very likely transparent to Russian and Chinese analysts too. I wonder how much of the defeat of the United States (and her European minions) in Western Asia was due to Russia & China, how much due to Iran & the Shia Muslims, and how much due to the US Hubris.

Posted by: Fyi | Jun 13 2021 16:53 utc | 122

Mr. Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 16:23 utc | 120

There is zero chance of the Persian Gulf Arabs or of Azerbaijan Republic launching an attack on Iran with any weapon, including F35; their entire civilian and military infrastructure will be gone before the F-35s have landed in another country since the airports from which they took off no longer would be operational.

Iran will not fight a limited war with them, in my opinion.

Posted by: Fyi | Jun 13 2021 16:58 utc | 123

Mr. vk | Jun 13 2021 15:39 utc | 118

Neither Iran, nor China, nor the Ottoman Empire, nor Japan, nor Afghanistan were colonies in 1900.

Posted by: Fyi | Jun 13 2021 17:04 utc | 124

@ Fyi (#122)

The Financial Empire is out of LUCK! Pride leads to destruction, and arrogance to downfall.

The Financial Empire had captured Russia in 1990s (it owned Yeltsin & his gang) and was going after China in the early 21st Century. It entered ME and its plan was to control all global natural resources and thereby dominate China’s development. However, Vladimir Putin was a game changer. In 2007, he openly declared that Russia will pursue an independent path and become a sovereign nation. After that, the Dollar Empire has attacked Russia in Georgia (2008), Syria (2012), Ukraine (2013), Venezuela (2019) and Belarus (2020). Now China, Russia... are challenging the Financial Empire. This is the reason the U$A never worried about China’s rise. Now the Dollar Empire is surprised. Hubris will meet its nemesis.

In early 2014, some accurately predicted that Russia will fight in Ukraine and Syria to save its two military bases in Crimea and Tartus. The establishment lackeys’ reasoning was that Russia is weak and won’t fight multiple battles. They’re full of hubris.

Deceivers decay... Time will reveal!

Posted by: Max | Jun 13 2021 17:22 utc | 125

China had an emperor in 1900. The concessions were not colonial conquest. The neocolonial concessions of today, called SEZs, aren't colonies either. So much for the ability to grasp facts. One of the main powers, imperialist Austria-Hungary, didn't even have colonies, while Germany and Italy had very few. On the other hand, one of the colonies was Ireland. No, the attempt to pretend there was some sort of unipolarity of any sort is drivel. The term "multipolarity" as used by its advocates is a shibboleth, not a valid concept.

It is not an anachronism to say the world of 1900 was multipolar. That is merely a real life example of multipolarity, where "multipolarity" actually means something in real life. The only reason the advocates of multipolarity refuse to concede the obvious is that their ideal of multipolarity would be a world of wars. The advocates of multipolarity want the Great Powers (aka the permanent members of the UN Security Council *of today*) to collude in divvying up the world as they supposedly did in 1945. That didn't work so well, so why they want to go back to it is a mystery. There are no good motives for wanting the UN, the Popular Front of nations, to run things, especially since the UN is premised on the inferiority of mere General Assembly members.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Jun 13 2021 17:43 utc | 126

Mr. Max | Jun 13 2021 17:22 utc | 125

Pride goeth before the Fall.

Posted by: Fyi | Jun 13 2021 17:47 utc | 127

@ 115 snake.. you might be correct in your comments to me.. thanks..

Posted by: james | Jun 13 2021 18:06 utc | 128

Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 16:23 utc | 120

Both 1 and 2 are correct. The "stealth" part of the F35 is primarily useful to hide an approach. (For some arcane technological reason)

3 is still dependent on refueling.
Clearly the use of "new" bases in the Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, would make any attack on Iran easier. Except that they would then be subject to retaliation.

Earlier projects were said to be planned to go over Greece with a stopover near the black sea (Azerbaijan probably) returning via Saudi or Iraq/Jordan. Or vice versa of course.

Any bomb load is a compromise with the need for fuel. One thing that changes that assumption is the setting up of way stations, to provide bombs or fuel. ie. US bases serving (discretely) in extending Israels' operational abilities.

With the recent Mossad revelations about attacks and assassinations in Iran, and elsewhere including France (Nuclear tech. that was to be delivered (?) several years ago), it will be interesting to see what the incoming Government will be like. Apparently Bennett is more extremist than Netanyahu. But he may not see the same need to start a world war to save himself from prosecution for corruption.

Posted by: Stonebird | Jun 13 2021 18:32 utc | 129

karlof1 | Jun 12 2021 18:05 utc | 8
karlof1 | Jun 13 2021 0:26 utc | 70

...Industrial Capitalism and actual regulation must return for the USA to have a chance geopolitically, but the Parasites are firmly against that now that they're fat and growing fatter."

Maybe there is need for a better understanding of Parasites...and who they are.

Then you deliver at 70:

"... the Outlaw US's seen the entire planet as its strategic interest, which was the first post-war BigLie it told to itself and swallowed whole."

The viewpoint of Parasites: sees the entire planet as its strategic interest.

Let's spot and handle the Parasites. !

Posted by: chu teh | Jun 13 2021 18:57 utc | 130

As far as why no joint press conference, I don't think it's just Biden's tendency to put foot in mouth as much as it is in light of all the anti-Russian propaganda over the past 4-5 years it's kind of a tight wire act to manage perception on this -- even if you had someone who could be relied on to handle themselves adroitly. If you come to some kind of accommodation (over just about anything) then what was that all about(the past 4-5 years)? I think if they're going to try to adopt a change in approach towards Russia they're going to have to do it gradually... try to prepare the public for it.

Posted by: Be-bop | Jun 13 2021 19:16 utc | 131

I would say that in the interest of fair play, Mr Putin shouldn't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Posted by: Shadow | Jun 13 2021 20:14 utc | 132

Anawer about the F-15series:
You state: "F-15EX which is now in production after the Gulf states handily paid for the bulk of the R&D. Initially it will replace the old F-15C/D single seat interceptors but in the longer term will also add to or replace the F-15E"
Indeed, this series of planes wer far superior to earlier combat aircraft and also to later F-16 and F-35. But they had one drawback: They were buildt for fighting other planes and for reqnnasains. The Shah ofIran wanted more of these during the 70´-ies, but US would not sell hi more, We had all the drawings in Tehân, but no planes to equip the (over-priced) sparw parts to. Only the israëli spies we knew fathomed the reasons...-at that time in the late 1970ies!. so they died.

Posted by: Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 20:18 utc | 133

SORRY FOR ALL THE DYPO SLIP-UPS. Here is the corrected version:
Anawer about the F-15series:
You state: "F-15EX which is now in production after the Gulf states handily paid for the bulk of the R&D. Initially it will replace the old F-15C/D single seat interceptors but in the longer term will also add to or replace the F-15E"
Indeed, this series of planes were far superior to earlier combat aircraft (and Switserand-produced transponders obeying Fledermaus radar systems) and also superior to later F-16 and F-35. But they had one drawback: They were maid for fighting other planes and for recnnaisance.not raally to kill against the ground. The Shah of Iran wanted more of these during the 70´-ies, but US would not sell hi more, We had all the drawings in Tehrân, but no planes to equip the (over-priced) sparw parts to. Only the Israëli spies we knew fathomed the reasons...-at that time in the late 1970ies!. so they had to be died -- by their own kin and "brethern".

Posted by: Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 20:34 utc | 134

The Russkis ar bad-bad-bad:
Furst of all, at the end of the Napoleonic wars, they demanded from Sweden that Sweden should respect Norwegian constitutional parliamentary democracy and one-man-one-vote in 1814, And they made Benjamin Franklin a full member of their Academies of Scíences even before that! /bad-bad-bad, in British eyes), Then they freed the serfs one year before Lincoln freed the slaves, (But granted the serfs "39 acres and a mule" .. much unlike Lincoln, And they took the brunt of fighting against Hitler -- unlike the US 0f North A's proficiencys of covardice in both Europe and Asia- -- cant You USAians face up to your historic covardice ever?

Posted by: Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 21:01 utc | 135

Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 20:34 utc | 132/3

As I wrote, the early F-15 was an interceptor but the F-15E is an excellent ground attack aircraft and is well proven in that role. I wasn't aware of the Iranian interest as Iran bought the F-14

Posted by: JohninMK | Jun 13 2021 22:00 utc | 136


What is the order of succession in the RF if the president is killed?

How did the RF steer around the fact Sputnik V vaccinations are not recognised by Switzerland? Therefore the Russian press vaccinated with Sputnik V would not be granted permission to enter Switzerland.


Posted by: CarlD | Jun 13 2021 22:36 utc | 137

I see I am not the only one that considers the coming summit in Geneva a perfect shock and awe attempt moment for empire....maybe their last. Can they bring together some sort of killing event with a media barrage that will overwhelm resistance to some sort of hybrid war with the China/Russia axis? I hope not but I see the tide of event as pushing them to more and more desperate measure...we haven't seen nukes yet but bio-chemical warfare seems to be a possibility of late...

Ok, lets say the Putin/Biden summit goes off without a war triggering event. What is the message Putin has for Biden? It is the same that just came out of China, the world is not going to be ruled anymore by a subset of nations. I haven't heard of counter sanctions coming out of Russia but I recall that the US buys a bunch of petroleum products from Russia so I expect Russia could do similar to China if push comes to shove and the nukes don't go off.

I don't know how empire is going to respond going forward if they can't get a war on to cover their ongoing perfidy. The multi-trillion dollar promise for development by the G7 is not debt forgiveness and remember that the money comes from keystrokes only with the kicker being that the current Reserve Currency is faith backed fiat private/not sovereign money.

One of the future states, assuming a no-nike path, might be for the China/Russia axis, if sufficiently isolated, to establish a new Reserve Currency for the Axis that had some sort of non-fiat backing....and would not be convertible to the private keystroke created kind. That would initiate a transition that could easily turn into a stampede away from the US dollar.....I am not sure we ever get to this point because there is so much cross "axis" corporate investment and their response to China's sanction announcement should prove linked are "they" to private finance?

This civilization war about public/private finance is getting serious and I am glad to see it happening finally. I feel quite confident that the shit show form of Western social organization with global private finance at the core is coming to its inglorious way or another.....humanity will be the better for that.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 14 2021 2:11 utc | 138

Didn’t Trump work to improve relations?
But was undermined by his own US state dept and cia?
I’m certainly no expert. But I felt that one of Trumps feathers was he was open to a more realistic relationship with Russia.
That was one of his planks, yes?
OTOH, he had a great fear of China. With legit reasons. China is kicking ass.
Was Trump just a sideshow with respects to the generations of US animosity towards Russia?
Has the Us not changed one bit?
It looks that way

Posted by: Cadence calls | Jun 14 2021 5:57 utc | 139

Primarily an opportunity for Biden/Blinken to appear diplomatic and engaged. Biden will concluded by reading from prepared notes something about he stared into Putins eyes and measured his soul - something completely, painfully, childishly useless and self-aggrandizing.

Putin is hard to predict, I would say expect the unexpected. He does not play games, so it will be carefully worded but with reference to US irratic behavior.

The issue of NATO in Ukraine and Russian support for seperatist region will be central I imagine. Blinken will want to assess how far he can push Putin after having almost started a war on taking office.

Probably wont happen as Putin does not play, but would be fine opportunity to further humiliate Blinken.

Posted by: jared | Jun 14 2021 11:49 utc | 140

Didn’t Trump work to improve relations?
But was undermined by his own US state dept and cia?
I’m certainly no expert. But I felt that one of Trumps feathers was he was open to a more realistic relationship with Russia.
That was one of his planks, yes?
OTOH, he had a great fear of China. With legit reasons. China is kicking ass.
Was Trump just a sideshow with respects to the generations of US animosity towards Russia?
Has the Us not changed one bit?
It looks that way

Posted by: Cadence calls | Jun 14 2021 5:57 utc | 1osted by: Cadence calls | Jun 14 2021 5:57 utc | 138

Trump would say the moon is made of green cheese if he thought it would get him some more attention.

Neither one of them (Trump or Biden) seems to have a clue about China & Russia. We've been building up and "exploiting" China and denigrating Russia for 30 years now and all of a sudden these geniuses decide of China is the big threat. Why ought anybody listen to these clowns? The real threat is the continuing decay of the social fabric here caused by all the economic parasites, and I don't mean the poor.

Posted by: Bemildred | Jun 14 2021 11:53 utc | 141

What is the message Putin has for Biden?

Each side already know the positions of the other. IMO I think both leaders will be speaking mostly to the citizens of the world: Biden will attack the "enemies of freedom and democracy" and Putin will denounce Western greed and meddling. Each will say that this is an existential struggle.

This new Cold War is not about ideology like the last(socialism vs. capitalism) but about something more fundamental: proper global governance such that humanity avoids dystopia (of various kinds). I suspect that we will see a resolution that is different from what both sides now propose. That resolution may take a decade or several decades. Until then, it will be a bumpy ride.

I don't know how empire is going to respond going forward if they can't get a war on to cover their ongoing perfidy.

Cold War isn't enough?


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 14 2021 13:01 utc | 142

The Russkis ar bad-bad-bad:
Furst of all, at the end of the Napoleonic wars, they demanded from ...

Posted by: Theo Oros אש תיצפ | Jun 13 2021 21:01 utc | 134

Even today we see consequences of haughty Russian demands from those years. As Russian army stationed in Paris after the final defeat of Napoleon, the officers (and the soldiers) got the habit of coming to eating establishments and demanding to be served quickly. Soon the locals learned the Russian word bistro (quickly) and made eateries named Bistro. Now we have bistros and assorted fast foods, usually quite inferior.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 14 2021 13:02 utc | 143

My previous comment was in response to psychohistorian @Jun14 2:11 #137.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 14 2021 13:03 utc | 144

b, I'm also surprised of that early meeting, it's like summits from the 80ties.
but there are other reasons for Biden - first, he hasn't much more time - his dimentia is progressing and, second - he will give the office after 2 years to C.Harris, I'm sure of that, even without any sickness, this was his plan already before election. maybe he is cooling down the world-stage for C. Harris, both have enough work on the us-mainland, no need for stress outside.

and the talks have, IMHO, one blurry stain, is Ukraine blackmailing the Bidens and to what aim?

Posted by: prneost | Jun 14 2021 13:08 utc | 145

John Cleary @98--

Well, you asked for my thoughts. First for others, here's the interview transcript Mercouris is discussing in his video.

My view includes the overall historical context of Anglo-Russian relations since 1914, which might even be dialed further back to 1860. By Anglo, I mean combined US/UK. For the deeply inquisitive, it's known that the UK sought to continue its Empire by reattaching the USA to it, and I'd say the UK's been mostly successful in that--it's called the Special Relationship. I don't need to remind you of the UK's elite's hatred and fear of the masses it has termed the Hydra since at least Bacon in QE1's time, thus its aversion to any form of a levelling political-economy arising anywhere. The UK acts as the Outlaw US Empire's local bobby to keep the EU in line, a role it performed prior to the EU's formation. UK/US lies about Russia go back to 1918 as does their direct intervention into its affairs, a situation that continues today despite Russia's efforts to oust their agents. Today, ideologically, the UK/US are riven by Neoliberal parasites who share control with the Crown and Military Industrial Complex, whose aim--as before--is the enrichment of the Crown and elite at the expense of the masses--another round of Enclosure as I mentioned before. Russia's policy in contrast aims at uplifting its human capital and developing it to its highest degree of potential while eliminating very longstanding pockets of rural poverty, especially in Siberia and the Far East. In formulating that policy which Putin did very early in his administration, partnering with China was seen as very pragmatic given the extreme rapaciousness of the West, which Putin correctly saw as aimed at destroying Russia--the Anglos were of course in the vanguard of the raping. Putin appealed to the US/UK to see if the Anglos would be capable of becoming friends/partners; and after several attempts, he saw that was impossible, made his dramatic 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference, and had all his assumptions proven with the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia in 2008. NATO-Bloc Anti-Russian policy has only escalated since, but I would say the Cold/Hybrid war against the USSR/Russia never actually stopped as the ultimate goal has always been the installation of a vassal government, which came quite close with Yeltsin.

IMO, the Special Relationship ought to help people see the Outlaw US Empire as actually the Outlaw Anglo Empire with the UK very often acting as the attack dog when it comes to relations with Russia--sort of a Good Cop/Bad Cop tandem with the USA having the Good Cop role. Also, there's the traditional "Holding at arms length" policy the UK's employed toward Europe since @1600. IMO, the UK can exert more pressure on EU via NATO than it could while within the EU because there're numerous EU policies the UK doesn't want to obey because of its Special Relationship. However, with Putin and Russia now embracing the Eurasian Economic Union concept that would welcome EU members but can well do without their participation, the EU/UK actually become strategically diminished in importance, which allows Russia to express a more honest opinion about the EU/UK that before, which is what we've seen develop over the past two years. Glenn Diesen in his book about Russia's Geoeconomics shows how Russia's turn to the East has made the EU dependent on Russia instead of the way it was previously when Russia wanted to be included in the European Club, and that now allows Russia to somewhat ignore EU/UK political garbage aimed at it since they're dishonest anyhow.

At Geneva, Biden has no cards to play--none--thanks to the domestic chaos caused by 30+ years of hardcore Neoliberalism. Putin in contrast has all the cards. The intellectual capability difference between the two sides is gigantic with Russia being several men taller than the USA. In reality, the Outlaw US Empire finds itself in the same situation it faced with China in Alaska, and Biden's presence only serves to complicate the affair as he must be minded.

In closing, I'll leave you with this "GT Exclusive with Russian ambassador: What position would Russia take in case of an armed conflict between China and US?" The first Q is about the summit; I concur with ambassador Denisov's reply:

"GT: Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden will meet in Geneva on June 16. What are your expectations for the meeting? How do you evaluate the possibility of improvement in Russia-US relations during Biden's presidency?

"Denisov: We are realists. We do not expect impossible outcomes. We welcome any measures that reduce tensions and competition, but we are very cautious about what we can expect from the Russian-American relations, especially in the context of the very tense relations between the two countries. The Geneva summit, the first meeting between the two leaders since Biden took office, is less likely to resolve important issues between the two countries. A better outcome, though, is that it sets the conditions for resolving problems in the future."

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 14 2021 16:33 utc | 146

snake @115--

First off, it's important to note that the "plea" was published by Russian media in Russian and to my knowledge was never made public within the Outlaw US Empire despite it going against Trump's MAGA pledge. Here's its link. It was published on 24 April 2020 and is titled "U.S. declares new energy war on Russia." The article's main point is to show how empty that threat is based on the self-induced debilitation of the Outlaw US Empire's capabilities. Here's the paragraph documenting the plea, which is termed a "demand":

"The United States is behind Russia in the nuclear sphere not today. Two and a half years ago, two U.S. companies, Energy Fuels and Ur-Energy, which mine uranium, began to sound the alarm: the share of U.S. uranium in the U.S. market fell from 49% to 5%. They demanded that Donald Trump set a quota of 25% for uranium from the United States by imposing duties on foreign uranium. However, the president refused the restrictions, but created a working group on nuclear fuel, which was tasked with preparing a large report on the leadership of the United States in the nuclear industry. And the report published this night by the U.S. Department of Energy was the result of the work done. A previous report was submitted to Trump in 2019, but he sent it for revision."

What follows is the discussion after the above paragraph:

"The United States, in fact, has long since lost many of its competences.

"The only thing the U.S. can do is produce nuclear fuel. However, they have serious problems with the independent production of uranium and, more importantly, with uranium enrichment and the construction of new nuclear power plants on their own.

"'The U.S. does not have commercial uranium enrichment technologies to date. The old plants are closed and the new ones are not built,' says Alexander Uvarov.

"According to official statistics, by the end of 2018 (by 2019 data will be published only in May this year) uranium enrichment for the U.S. is 52% engaged in foreigners, the remaining 48% is the American company. However, this is just a 'cute statistical ploy,'' Uvarov points out. By [the way,] the American company is the European plant built in the United States by URENCO.

"'Of course, this plant operates under the URENCO USA flag, and it can be included in the statistics as American. But, for example, Americans do not have access to the technology installed in the factory. There was a time when Rosatom also wanted to build a enrichment plant in the United States. If this option had passed, it would also be "American,"' the interlocutor explains."

There's more that follows, but IMO what's above is most important when it comes to having the ability to upgrade nuclear weapons.

In last nights Fear the Walking Dead episode where nukes from the USS Pennsylvania were supposed to obliterate the locale surrounding it, I was surprised by the portrayal for it made it appear that nuclear war is survivable. I did some research today and found that the warheads in the one Trident missile that was launched are W88 warheads having a 750KT yield, which are rather small and thus easier to survive if they're not too closely placed when detonated. So, the outcome depicted in the show would be possible.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 14 2021 17:13 utc | 147

Putin on why meet with Biden - NBC interview transcript

Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 14 2021 18:16 utc | 148

karlof1 @Jun14 17:13 #147:

At Geneva, Biden has no cards to play--none ...

Yet another commenter focuses on the interaction/diplomacy between Putin/Russia and Biden/USA as though this were an ordinary summit.

Yet this is no ordinary summit:

  1. there is virtually no working relationship between the two countries; and
  2. Biden is now taking the Cold War to a new level by calling for the West and its allies to unite against the (evil) leadership of countries that are deemed adversaries (China being the latest such country).

So what can be expected? Each side will re-iterate their positions and then tell the world why their side is right the other side is not.

It's strange to me that so many are ignoring the obvious propaganda play. That's a 'card' that Biden/USA will play and probably play well because Western leaders are practiced bullshitters.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 14 2021 19:31 utc | 149

The security of Israel is the main topic in Geneva. First question interview NBC ..

Posted by: ogm | Jun 14 2021 21:46 utc | 150

What is driving America's New Cold War?

The Defense of Freedom, Democracy, or a Rules-Based World Order?


Not exactly.

America is waging a New Cold War against China, because the self-styled Leader of the Free World can't compete--despite all its chest-beating rhetoric about "competing to win the 21st century."

Of course, the Americans are easily butt-hurt, so they will never ever admit this.

Instead, America prefers once again to play the morally (self-)righteous "democracy" that is being threatened by yet another nefarious Evil-Doer-Who-Hate-Our-Freedoms.

The US war on China’s economic model

US Wages Cold War Against China Because America Can’t Compete

Posted by: ak74 | Jun 15 2021 7:25 utc | 151

Posted by: ak74 | Jun 15 2021 7:25 utc | 151

America can't compete...unless the vassal states (and there are a lot of them) can be whipped up into a frenzied crusade to defeat "the great evil of our time" or something like that.

The demonization of China is still in the early stages. Next, there is a 100% chance that the US government, likely with the assistance of some "objective" NGOs like the OPCW, will officially claim that Covid leaked from a Chinese laboratory and that China "must pay the price." They will probably time the accusation to coincide with stirring up conflict in Taiwan, thus allowing them to claim that China is not just the source of a dangerous virus, but aggressive as well.

The goal is to make China an international pariah and wreck its export-based economy. Oil-exporting countries (most of which have a US military presence, BTW) will face pressure not to export their oil.

Pathetically, I don't think the goal is even to bring manufacturing back to the US. They just want to send it to poor countries that lack the leadership necessary to use the wealth from manufacturing as a tool to become prosperous, as China did.

Posted by: Donbass Lives Matter | Jun 15 2021 11:42 utc | 152


Hasnt been usbstaniated--pretty sure this answers your question in the headline though.

Posted by: christy | Jun 15 2021 16:53 utc | 153

@153 christy

That's not breaking news, that's old. The story is that Zelensky postured with the ultimatum and the US said no. Anyone actually reading that article would see that it says as much.

The Sun tabloid was recently declared formally by owner Murdoch to be "worthless." Wags in response called it "still overvalued."

That's the real story.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 15 2021 17:52 utc | 154

Posted by: prneost | Jun 14 2021 13:08 utc | 145

Just so we're clear. Now you are a doctor AND a mind reader. That advances our knowledge for sure. So, thanks. I guess we'll know in 18 months.


Posted by: TominAZ | Jun 15 2021 22:13 utc | 155

I now request to repeat my June 12, 2021 'prediction', since most readers won't go searching for it:

Why">">Why Is There A Biden-Putin Summit And What Is It Supposed To Achieve?
Posted by: blues | Jun 12 2021 23:55 utc | 68 -- (At four days before the event.)

Here's what's goin' down. (According to my 95% WRONG predictions.) Nothing whatever of the slightest importance will be discussed at the Putin/Biden 'summit'. No significant accords will be established, and virtually nothing will occur. EXCEPT:

This will be a rollicking Royal Send-Up for the benefit of Joe Biden. Why? The logic is dirt simple. Biden is always on the hairy edge of being removed from office for incapacitation. Russia would then be dealing with the amateur and insanely aggressive Kamala Harris. It's about sticking with the Devil You Know.

Therefor, Putin will provide the feeble Joe Biden with an all-in Royal Send-Up. Putin will praise Biden to the heavens. He will even toss in some empty but hugely auspicious 'concession'. Which will be hailed by the indentured media as a Tremendous Victory.

All solely to keep the feeble Master of Bargain Basement Politics in 'charge'.

What I was really imagining was that the ENTIRE point of of the fake 'summit' was simply to keep the empty-headed bimbo Kamala Harris out of the presidency (for as long as possible). Can anyone really imagine a summit with Harris and Putin? Then, the whole point of this psy-op was to be to make Biden look 'good' (within the realm of the possible). And maybe this is exactly what this whole thing was about.

I did note that at his post-'summit' briefing, Biden did not read from notes, and issued no big gaffs. I suspect that the White House spokesperson unit has finally figured out a workable solution to the dementia problem. They have simply implanted a tiny radio receiver in Biden's ear, and some remote spokesperson simply sent out words, which Biden simply repeated.

Being that I am a sci-fi fan, I am tempted to take this to a higher level. There is a fleet of ten giant C-5A strategic airlifters (cargo jets) set down at a secret air base in Switzerland. They contain a half-dozen super computers, and 300 technicians at work stations. This system sends a cell phone-like signal to a super-sophisticated receiver implanted in Joe Biden's head, taking the place of the brain stem. It controls everything Joe says and does. He can't even breath or digest food unless the proper signals are sent. Poor Joe's brain can only communicate by blinking his eyes.

Posted by: blues | Jun 17 2021 8:44 utc | 156

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.