Video conversation V.V.

Putin with D. Biden lasted 2 hours and 9 minutes.

It was of a closed nature, and after it there was neither an official communique, nor a joint statement.

As, however, it was originally announced: the presidents will just sit and talk.

Formal courtesies don't count.

However, after the conversation, the parties behaved differently.

The Russian side, in accordance with the statement that there will only be a reconciliation of clocks, and no decisions will be made, commented on the conversation that had ended.

It was stated that no war was expected in the near future - and thanks for that.

In the future, perhaps, the conversations will be more fruitful.

Or they won't.

Russian diplomats are ready for this in advance.

The status quo is so the status quo.

Which, in principle, corresponds to the rules of international communication. If the two sovereigns had a conversation and did not agree on anything (however, no one hoped), then those closest to them keep diplomatic silence, getting off anyone with non-binding good wishes. If no peace agreement has been reached, but there is no desire to fight immediately either, the best thing you can think of is to say something about how cooperation is, in principle, good. Diplomats know the appropriate formulas.

Actually, if you look at the actions of the American side in the context of the conversation, they are rather conciliatory in nature, at least not desperately militant. An article on sanctions against the SP-2 disappeared from the draft American budget, and talk about disconnecting Russia from the SWIFT system and about a ban on converting rubles into dollars and euros suddenly fell silent. Again, a statement was made about the irrelevance (for now, obviously) of the evacuation of Americans from Ukraine, which may indicate how seriously US practitioners take military rumors from Bloomberg and Bild.

Of course, all this can be replayed ten times more, and even with a reason, even without a reason (and the reason, if necessary, is immediately made).

The beauty of US sanctions is that they are imposed completely arbitrarily.

This is guaranteed by the experience not only of Russia, but also of other countries.

Nevertheless, it was in the context of the conversation between Putin and Biden that it was decided to temporarily abstain.

Otherwise, the US president would look like a figure that Washington does not openly reckon with: “Let the president talk about anything and with anyone, but we know our business: sanctions, sanctions, and more sanctions”.

But then why talk?

But if in concrete cases the American authorities tempered their zeal, then in speeches - not at all.

Rather, they even made it worse.

National Security Adviser Sullivan said that "the topic of the future SP-2 in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the coming weeks is a priority for us."

That is, you can write anything in the budget, an invasion is a dream and a fantasy, but we are always ready to torpedo the SP-2 - this is our Jackson-Vanik amendment for decades to come.

And Deputy Secretary of State Nuland said: "There are fears that he (Putin), as a project of his legacy, is seeking to recreate the Soviet Union."

In Russia itself, even those who sincerely nostalgic for the USSR are skeptical of such undertakings.

It may be a pity, but 30 years have passed, the dead from the churchyard are not carried.

And only the chief specialist of the State Department for Russia believes that V.V.

Putin is ready to carry the dead from the churchyard - even tomorrow.

The problem of doing business with America is that previously there was a foreign policy consensus in the United States, and within its framework it was possible to bargain and negotiate (see the times of L.I.Brezhnev).

Now the consensus has long since drifted away and the US President is acting not on the basis of the mandate given to him, but on what basis is unknown.

As if negotiations on matters of principle were conducted by the president of a parliamentary republic - for example, Italy.

He could agree on anything, but without a clear mandate, the price of these agreements would be frankly small.

Hence our position: “Talk?

Why not.


Although the US President is a weak figure, this is still not quite Zelensky. "

It is another matter that it would be overly optimistic to count on the achievement of serious and binding agreements in the current Washington confusion.

But as one of the items on the working agenda - along with a dozen others - such a conversation is quite possible.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.