The Russian-American summit brought about the main sensation, which is not even that the presidents of the two countries were able to jump over their heads and did not give the slightest reason for the supporters of the continuation of the full-scale confrontation between Moscow and Washington to call the summit a failure.
The main sensation, the significance of which has yet to be grasped by the entire collective West, is the second or even third place of the long-suffering theme of the Ukrainian crisis.
It was impossible not to notice that Donald Trump's successor in the White House had no desire or interest to further exaggerate the Ukrainian topic, to consider it the main instrument of pressure on Russia.
Joe Biden was clearly not interested, not excited.
As it turned out, Washington also does not claim a leading or any special, independent role in the Ukrainian settlement.
In theory, it could consist in trying to elbow members of the "Normandy four" (Russia, Germany, France, Ukraine) and make the four into a five.
Change the Normandy format to something else - after the hypothetical joining of the United States to it.
This is exactly what Ukrainian diplomacy has been striving for for so many years, which was looking for any reason to deviate from the Minsk agreements, making truly titanic efforts to this and looking at Washington with hope: America will come and replay everything, restore order.
As it turned out in Geneva, Ukrainian diplomacy was engaged in Sisyphean labor.
America does not need an independent role that could run counter to the efforts and achievements of international mediators.
She is primarily concerned with completely different things today - strategic stability, the future of the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, cyberattacks on American strategic facilities, the opening of humanitarian corridors in Syria, the nuclear deal with Iran, countering terrorism in Afghanistan, as well as the health of Alexei Navalny, and much more. ...
But certainly Joe Biden hardly cares or even does not care at all about Crimea, which he never mentioned.
In general, Ukraine is in the long list of priorities of the new US administration, judging by the statement made by the first person in Washington in Geneva, is the tenth question.
The press conference of Joe Biden, who answered the questions of American journalists after Vladimir Putin presented his version of the summit to the press, fully confirmed this.
When the Russian president was the first to declare that the Ukrainian topic in Geneva was touched upon only by a “smear”, Kiev probably might have thought that Putin was not saying something, dissembling, hiding, and distorting the essence.
How can it be that about Ukraine - and just a "smear"?
No way!
Let us recall how President Zelensky literally jumped out of his pants and rushed to meet with Joe Biden before Vladimir Putin, how he and his entourage instilled in everyone the idea that the Geneva summit would, above all, be an extremely difficult conversation for Moscow about Ukraine.
That is why Ukrainian politicians, deputies and the army of talking heads in Kiev were waiting for the Russian-American summit.
But they didn’t wait for anything, and this is bad news for Kiev, which looks like the main loser.
There was no Ukrainian bacon in Swiss geopolitical chocolate.
In his final statement at a press conference in Geneva, President Biden made one single phrase about Ukraine, which it makes sense to quote in its entirety.
“I conveyed the unshakable commitment of the United States to the sovereignty of Ukraine, we also discussed the Minsk agreements.
He (Putin) did not contradict me, but, of course, there were differences, ”the US President said about his discussion of Ukraine with Vladimir Putin.
Later, during the press conference, Joe Biden no longer returned to the Ukrainian topic for the simple reason that for some reason the American journalists never asked him about it.
And Ukrainian journalists, like Russian ones, were not invited to the press conference of the American president.
A couple of hours earlier, Vladimir Putin said at his press conference: "Russia has only one obligation on Ukraine - the implementation of the Minsk agreements, if Kiev is ready."
Comparing the statements of Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin on Ukraine suggests that both presidents do not even consider the possibility of abandoning the Minsk agreements or revising them.
In this regard, Joe Biden's words that Vladimir Putin “did not contradict him” are quite understandable.
Indeed, why contradict when sound things sound?
In the same way, apparently, Vladimir Putin could have said about Joe Biden that the US President contradicted him on the issue of the Minsk agreements.
In different words, the leaders of Russia and America in this particular case spoke about the same thing.
As for Joe Biden's "unshakable adherence to the sovereignty of Ukraine" - after all, not only America, but also Russia is committed to this principle, isn't it?
If the question for Moscow stood differently, if its task really was to encroach on Ukrainian sovereignty, destroy, disintegrate the Ukrainian state and change its current borders, then Donbass could have gone to Russia long ago, could have become Russian long ago.
But it has not gone and will not go away, despite the ongoing bloody internal Ukrainian conflict in the east of the country, because there are all the same Minsk agreements that reinforce the commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state.
And these agreements cannot be neglected.
The Russian-American summit in Geneva was not at all about Ukraine, did not become "Ukrainian-centric" and, of course, this in itself tends to become a sensation.
In the long term, it will become a new turn in Russia's relations not only with America, but also with its Western allies.
Let us recall that seven years ago, it was the Ukrainian crisis that became that watershed, that starting point of the ongoing full-scale confrontation between Moscow and the West, which led to the exclusion of Russia from the G8, to the war of sanctions, and to many other devastating consequences, which it makes no sense to enumerate.
It was then that President Obama, of whom Joe Biden was then vice-president, said that Russia was "on the other side of history" and it would pay dearly for it.
After that, the task of Ukrainian diplomacy, which it openly declared, was to extend Western sanctions against Russia and push the United States and its allies into a quarrel with Moscow.
And after Geneva, it looks like something broke in this scheme, the system malfunctioned.
Remaining strategic rivals and not hiding it, Moscow and Washington are already looking for areas of practical interaction, which, as it turns out, may not be so few.
At the same time, most importantly, Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin do not want Russian-American relations to be further paused because of Crimea and Donbass, and then remain hostages of the Ukrainian crisis.
This will no longer happen, and Vladimir Zelensky and his predecessor and chief architect of the Ukrainian policy of international pressure on Moscow, Petro Poroshenko, will have to come to terms with this extremely unpleasant new reality for them.
It is extraordinarily curious how and when the European allies, who once imposed their own sanctions, impressed by Barack Obama's words that Russia was on the other side of history, will react to this change of US priorities.
Will they continue to chew the same Kiev cutlet, stubbornly talk about the same things about Crimea and Donbass, not fearing to be out of the trend set by Joe Biden in Geneva?
The Russian-American summit meeting - the first after the change of the US administration - can be called productive and effective if only because it did not become Ukrainian bacon in Swiss chocolate, which should not be confused with Roshen chocolate.
No matter how anyone wants it.
Presidents Biden and Putin were able to conduct it as constructively and non-conflict as possible, carefully avoiding sharp corners and prudently not opening the cabinets in which numerous Russian-American skeletons are hidden.
In this situation, one can afford a slight frivolity of comparison and risk calling the Geneva meeting a summit in chocolate.
Another thing is that delicious chocolate tends to be eaten quickly and soon one wrapper may remain from Geneva.
The potential for conflict in Russian-American relations is quite impressive.
But in any case, even if it does, it will be a completely different story.
Not about Ukraine.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.