Biden and Putin: they have the keys

Biden and Putin: an indispensable dialogue

Victor Angelo

 

When leaders like Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin spend two hours in a frontal discussion, we, simple mortals, can look at it positively, even when the results seem uncertain. I have always argued that major crises should be directly discussed between those who actually hold power. Leaving such crises to be dealt with at the level of foreign ministers, however experienced, is not enough. So often it only serves to aggravate misunderstandings and pander to extreme positions. We often see ministers who are more papist than the Pope. Even when they foresee solutions, they do not dare mention them, for fear of the leader's reaction. It is up to the leader to send appeasement signals, to show the way and mark the bounds, which are now known as "red lines".

That is what Biden and Putin sought to do. And this is the way they should continue, preferably in personal meetings. Diplomacy is done with handshakes. Even in times of pandemic. Leaders know this. That is why Emmanuel Macron was in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia a few days ago, with much success, regarding the French war industries - and much criticism from human rights activists. And Pope Francis, who does not stop despite apparent physical frailty, went to Cyprus and Greece. Vladimir Putin himself made a lightning trip to India on Monday to spend a few hours strengthening relations with Narendra Modi, encouraging trade and, above all, deepening political-military cooperation.

A positive outlook does not prevent us from seeing the gravity of the current situation. The massive deployment of troops and exceptional logistical means in Russian regions close to the eastern border of Ukraine makes one think, whether one likes it or not, of the preparation of a military offensive. That is the interpretation that prevails in the main European capitals and in Washington. Some academics and others with an open window to the media street say it is a way for Moscow to apply pressure, to get certain political guarantees coming from the opposite side. That may be so. But the truth is that this reading is not accepted by Western leaders, who see in Russia's military moves all the signs of a short-term warlike action against Ukraine. The pretext for such action would be to counter a hypothetical campaign by Kiev against the pro-Russian separatists who control the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. The Kremlin swears it has no intention of intervening militarily, but this message does not get through, because of the extraordinary degree of mobilisation on the ground. Putin needs more than solemn declarations on the right to homeland defence, a statement that makes no sense since nobody intends to invade this or any other part of the Russian Federation. 

Indeed, Russians and Westerners need to get out of the trap they have let themselves fall into, especially since 2013, as if there should be a permanent hostility between the two. Unfortunately, it seems that only demonstrations of force make eyes open. So, on the Western side, there is now a threat that has been clearly explained to Putin. But it is not a military threat. It would be a package of measures that would have a huge impact on the Russian economy, which is no longer in good health. Russia would be cut off from a large part of the international financial and payment systems, which are in fact controlled by the Americans, it would have immense difficulties in changing its roubles into euros and dollars, not to mention other restrictions in terms of investment, trade, and travel to Europe. Biden was very shrewd in his approach. Before and after his conversation with Putin, he involved Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom in the consultation. We have a cohesion of five. For prudence's sake, I believe, it does not include Poland or any other Eastern European country. It is clearly an agreement that tells us that we are at a dangerous crossroads and that the continuation of the conversation between the leaders is the indispensable way forward. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 December 2021)

 

 

Lukashenko must go

The people of Belarus had never occupied the centre of our European attention. For us, in the European Union, they were just a small nation at the outer periphery of our political space. We knew nothing about them. Now, they are at the centre of our admiration. They have shown, since the fraudulent early August elections, to be a very valiant people. They have been on the streets almost every day, to tell the dictator that enough is enough and that he should go. Men and women, lots of folks, some older people as well, everyone is ready to face the police repression because they want to be heard. This is no revolution pushed from outside the country. This is a genuine popular movement. I think that sooner the dictator will have to yield. The popular dislike is too obvious for him and his small group of supporters to be able to ignore it. And he cannot count of Vladimir Putin’s help. If this one comes to help – I hope he will not – he will get rid of him in any case. Putin knows that Lukashenko is politically finished.

The candidates and the Security Council

Tomorrow the UN Security Council will be voting for the first time this year on the matter of the next Secretary-general. This initial round is just to clean the list of candidates a bit. As a result, a few will get an indication that their candidature cannot fly. They will withdraw silently and the process would move on.

My reading is that the geopolitical considerations will matter considerably. The Council will certainly look at the Eastern European candidates with greater attention. And then, at the gender issue.

On Russia, we have to keep the diplomatic bridges open

On 9 May there will be a major party in Moscow. It will celebrate the 70^th anniversary of the Soviet victory against Nazism, the end of World War II, as we would say on this part of Europe. In the Russian historical narrative this is a big day. Most probably one of the top celebrations every year. It has also a lot of political meaning, as the date is sold to the people as Russian soldiers liberating Europe, after a devastating war.

This time the European leaders will not be around in Moscow. The current political and military tensions with Russia led to a decision to boycott Vladimir Putin´s invitation to attend. The decision seems to be consistent with the economic and political sanctions being imposed by our side on Russia.

But I think we should make a distinction between sanctions – which are fully justified – and diplomacy. Diplomacy should be more active than ever, now that there are serious reasons to be unhappy with Russia´s international behaviour. Diplomacy aims at repairing conflict situations. And diplomacy means contacts, being around, keeping the doors open.

In the case under discussion here, I think the best solution would have been to accept the invitation to attend the 9^th May party but to send second line political representatives. That would mean we would be around, and ready to engage, but at the same time our lower level of participation would be showing our displeasure with today´s Kremlin´s political options.

That would give no excuse to our hosts, no chance to paint us in bad colours.

Sanctions have an impact on the views around President Putin

In the last few months, the Russian rouble has lost 30% of its dollar value. This is directly linked to the sanctions the Western countries have put in place against Russia´s economic and financial interests. And on top of it, there is a strong fall in the price of oil, which is a key export commodity in Russia. 

All of this bites and cannot be immediately addressed by alternative ties with China and other economies. Such ties take time to produce effects. Russia is confronted with short-term challenges. It is true they have a huge sovereign fund. That gives the leadership some space. But is it enough? One start getting reports of divergent approaches within the leadership. These needs to be further investigated. 

The environment in Eastern Europe is not good

President Vladimir Putin keeps playing tough ball on Ukraine. And he is also raising the stakes in his response to the Western sanctions. Both decisions are serious challenges to peace in Europe.

It would be a mistake to take peace in our continent for granted.

But even if this only part of a gambling approach to international relations, we should not forget that the decisions that are now being implemented carry important economic costs. And we should also keep in mind that when the political leaders are ready to sacrifice the economy that means a lot. One should then redouble the security precautions. Better be alert and prepared. 

A plane too much

The shooting-down of the Malaysia Airlines plane is clearly the work of the separatists Russia supports in Ukraine.

The tragedy brings in two points: Russia has to stop its backing of these individuals; and the Kiev government has to assess its own capability to deal with the rebels. If the assessment concludes that the government forces cannot resolve the crisis in the very near future, then the solution is to ask for help from Ukraine´s friends. The point is that the armed violence has lasted for too long and should therefore be resolved without further ado. 

Ukraine and the financial markets

The international financial markets seem to be less nervous about the crisis in Ukraine. This is a bit surprising at a time when nobody knows what could happen next in the Eastern regions of the country.

My reading is that they take the new situation, including the potential separation of those lands from the rest of Ukraine, as a fait accompli, something that will happen in any case. The people behind the key financial funds, those who define the trends, have now had enough time to move moneys around and adjust to the new game in Eastern Europe.