Has the US attitude towards Russia changed after the Geneva talks
The art of communication implies the ability to read the signals that a person sends with the help of” body language ” (body language) — facial expressions, gestures, poses. Communication experts analyzed the behavior of Presidents Putin and Biden during their Geneva meeting, and some of their observations deserve attention.
Photo: Alexey Merinov
The Internet resource Business Insider cites the opinion of communications coach Mary Civiello, which she expressed in an interview with the British BBC: although the negotiations between Biden and Putin took place behind closed doors, much could be learned from their behavior in those moments when there was an opportunity to see them together.
From the point of view of Civiello, the “body language” of both leaders did not reveal a clear imbalance of power — there is an approximate balance. The expert regards the first handshake between Putin and Biden as a “draw” in terms of the dynamics of power. Biden was the first to extend his hand to Putin, and Putin went in his direction to shake this hand. Observers saw this as a manifestation of goodwill on both sides without showing weakness. However, later it became not so good: not only Civiello, but also a number of other experts noted the lack of eye contact between the presidents when they took seats for negotiations.
Then, when they were already sitting, their poses were different: Biden sat straight and from time to time turned slightly in Putin’s direction, demonstrating readiness for dialogue; Putin, according to Civiello, sat in the “I don’t care” pose — leaning back and spreading his legs. The expert also noticed that the Russian president was tapping on the armrest of the chair, which means “Well, when will it end?” in translation from “body language”.
Mary Civiello says that the Russian president behaved quite consistently — he communicated in the same manner with other American leaders, always sending the same message: “Do not expect this meeting to seriously change something.” And Biden’s “body language”, according to the expert, says that he has no enthusiasm, but he is ready for interaction.
If we move from the communication “interpretation of signs” to the results of the meeting in fact, then no one in America saw any surprises in them. According to CBS, Joe Biden said about his first (as president) meeting with Vladimir Putin that he (Biden) “did what he came there for.” Putin, meanwhile, described the meeting with Biden as ” constructive.” Although the two leaders held the final press conferences separately, they nevertheless issued a joint statement that reads:
“We, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and President of the United States of America John R. Biden, note that Russia and the United States have demonstrated that even in times of tension they are able to make progress in implementing joint goals to ensure predictability in the strategic sphere, reduce the risks of armed conflicts and the threat of nuclear war.
The recent extension of the START Treaty is a testament to our commitment to nuclear arms control. Today we reaffirm our commitment to the principle that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed.
To achieve these goals, Russia and the United States will soon launch a comprehensive bilateral dialogue on strategic stability, which will be substantive and energetic. Through such a dialogue, we strive to lay the foundation for future arms control and risk reduction measures.”
This is the full text distributed by TASS. As we can see, there is neither a large volume nor a wide thematic diversity in it — we are talking about strategic stability and only about it. From this we can conclude that there was no “meeting of minds” on other issues at the Russian-American meeting in Geneva (meeting of the minds is another favorite term of the Americans from the sphere of communication and jurisprudence, meaning, in fact, reaching agreement).
Actually, it would be difficult to assume anything else, knowing what topics Joe Biden proposed to his Russian counterpart in addition to strategic stability. The conflict in Ukraine and the role of Moscow in it (a topic that the Russian President bypassed at his press conference). Hacker attacks on American companies and interference in American elections (both, according to Washington, are carried out on behalf ofor at least with the consent of the Kremlin). The fate of Alexey Navalny, in respect of whom, as Biden said, Putin received a warning: if Navalny dies, it will have consequences. In this regard, Putin repeated at a press conference the well-known theses about Navalny’s violation of the law, the inevitability of his arrest upon his return to Russia and the non-involvement of the Russian authorities in the poisoning of the opposition leader.
Another American TV company, CNBC, adds Crimea, Belarus and the possible exchange of Americans serving prison sentences in Russia for Russians sentenced to prison in the United States to the list of inconvenient topics. The latter topic was definitely discussed, and even to no avail: the presidents agreed to instruct their diplomats to work out the possibility of such an exchange. Vladimir Putin allowed such a possibility: “We talked about it. President Biden raised this issue in relation to American citizens who are in places of deprivationfreedoms of the Russian Federation”. Putin added that the parties can find compromises on this issue. But it will be more difficult for Biden to find a compromise than for Putin. Looking from the American bell tower, we are talking about an unequal exchange of Russians who actually committed serious crimes (for example, the pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was arrested in Liberia for transporting a large batch of drugs, or hackers who caused major damage) for Americans who were sewn fake accusations of espionage or who were framed for “criminal everyday life”.
Some meticulous reporters sought an answer from Biden at a press conference to the question: is he sure that Putin will now “change his behavior”? Biden replied: “I’m not sure about anything.” This echoes the way the Western media assessed the US–Russia summit from the very beginning. So, the BBC Russian service on the day of the summit published a material under the heading: “The meeting of Biden and Putin is a deliberately failed idea?”The Washington Post recalled that on the eve of the summit, Vladimir Putin set the tone for him in his interview with NBC — his first interview with the American media in three years. The Russian president, the newspaper writes, was ironic, avoided direct answers, his tone was condescending and at times indifferent. “This is the Kremlin’s message: Putin agreed to meet because he was asked, but no concessions are included in his plans.”
The French news agency AFP, summing up the results of the Geneva meeting, states that it did without loud phrases about “reset”, “looking into the soul”, etc. Both leaders behaved absolutely pragmatically, in accordance with the commandment of Otto von Bismarck, the first chancellor of the German Empire: “Politics is the art of the possible.” Putin ” helddefense”, but” did not get into trouble”, and Biden, smoothing out the statement about the” killer”, pleased Putin, recognizing him as a”worthy rival”. Only a lazy person in the West did not write that Putin needs the respect of the powerful of this world. And only he did not write that Biden’s predecessor clearly showed Putin hypertrophied respect and admiration.
Political scientist Ian Bremmer compared Biden’s attitude to Putin with his attitude to Chinese President Xi Jinping: he does not trust them, but is ready to look for areas of convergence of interests and opportunities for cooperation.
..Confirmation of strategic stability, the return of previously recalled ambassadors and an agreement on finding opportunities for the exchange of prisoners — not so much, but still some result. “I do not know how much better it could have been, but I know that it could have been much worse,” says Yuval Weber, a professor at the School of Public Service at Texas A&M University, about the Russia–US summit.
Joe Biden’s political opponents disagree with this assessment. According to Jim Risch, the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “summits should bring results,” and the “lack of real progress” in relations with Russia is “disappointing.”
He can be recommended two consolations: the above quote from Bismarck and the fact that his fellow party member Donald Trump, nicknamed “Putin’s poodle” at home, could not do more than Biden did.