By Jon B. Wolfsthal
June 16, 2021
“There is no substitute for face-to-face meetings between leaders.” This simple statement from President Biden helps explain the main outcome for the first-ever summit between him and President Putin. It appears that the conversation was probably pretty sober and tough. Drawing red lines and making clear that certain actions would be met with responses are tough discussions to have. But direct and sometimes hard talk can be very effective in enhancing deterrence and stability—qualities in short supply and much in need.
That said, Biden also stated that he made clear to Putin that there are areas where it is in the interest of both countries to cooperate—not for the sake of cooperation, but because progress is in America’s interest. First and foremost, among those was a detailed discussion about how the two states can pursue arms control and reduce the risks of both conflict and escalation. This discussion, first proposed in 2016 by President Obama, floundered under the last president but may find full form under the Biden administration. There is reason to believe that this set of talks may find common ground on covering all nuclear weapons, not just long-range delivery systems, and begin to cover other systems that can affect strategic stability, including advanced conventional weapons and even missile defenses that could undermine the ability to maintain mutual deterrence. No agreement will be reached quickly, but no agreement can be reached ever if the talks don’t start.
There are of course a lot of questions about where such talks might lead and whether any deals reached can be approved by the American Congress. But it is not hard to identify that there are new weapons and capabilities that could undermine the security of both states. And Biden summed up the meeting pretty well when he said that Putin and he will know in three to six months whether they have made progress on those areas, including strategic stability, cyber, and other issues. And so, it may make sense to consider this summit more of a messaging exercise to set up future success. After four years of drift and chaos, perhaps that is as much as one might have hoped for from this meeting.
Published at thebulletin.org
