Biden’s gifts to Moscow and Berlin, but Merkel remains pro-Chinese (and pro-Russian)
The Russian question – On March 17, 2021, Biden gave Putin the murderer , with probable reference to the "human rights" chapter. In response, Moscow conducted military exercises on the Ukrainian border. And he made the deputy foreign minister say that "Russia would forcefully reject what it considers an unacceptable interference in its geographical sphere of influence ".
Three weeks after calling him a killer, Biden invited Putin to a face-to-face. In the communiqué he was careful to explain the difference between national interests ("the United States will act firmly in defense of its national interests in response to Russia's actions, such as cyber intrusions and electoral interference") and Ukraine (" the unwavering commitment of the United States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The president expressed our concerns about the sudden Russian military build-up in occupied Crimea and on the borders of Ukraine and called on Russia to reduce tensions"). As you can see, he did not say at all that he wanted to act firmly in defense of the territorial integrity of Ukraine .
Concept in those days also clarified by the secretary of state, Blinken, to the Ukrainian foreign minister. As well as the fact that Ukrainian President Zelenskiy was invited, yes, next month, to the White House, but not to the NATO summit just held in Brussels. And, on the eve of the face-to-face, from Biden himself : "We will do everything possible to put Ukraine in the position of being able to continue resisting Russian physical aggression", but "Ukraine must further crack down on corruption and meet other criteria [not specified, ed ] before being taken into consideration for membership of NATO ".
Provoking the heartfelt reaction of Ukrainian President Zelenskiy : "Everyone should understand that we are at war, that we defend democracy in Europe and defend our country, and therefore they cannot simply speak to us with sentences about reforms". Of course, Biden would have reassured him like this: "I will not make Ukraine's interests an object of exchange" with Putin. But in Kiev it is not enough, it wants a commitment to be welcomed into NATO.
Zelenskiy should recall the example of Finnish interests : very well protected, and for several decades, by neutrality. Indeed, it is not very clear why Ukraine should not accept finlandisation. Of course, there is the sacredness of borders ("international law"); but it has already been violated with the secession of Kosovo. Of course, it would come at the price of territorial transfers which Ukraine naturally refuses; but no Western power has ever thought of going to war for Viipuri-Vyborg.
Indeed, the interest of all the actors in keeping the question open seems to prevail, as an inexpensive form of reciprocal pressure (see the usual pragmatic references in the final communiqué of the NATO summit). To be activated from time to time and when needed. As Putin has just shown, in fact.
* * *
À côté, the question of the Poles and the Baltic countries, apparently terrified of the risk that Moscow will do to them what it did to Ukraine. Taking advantage of the NATO summit on Monday 14, Biden assured in public that, for him, the commitment to take, in the event of an "armed attack" against a member of the Alliance, the action he "deems necessary, including the use of armed force "(art. 5 NATO) is a" sacred obligation ". In addition to this, the long conclusions have also extended the concept of "military attack" to cyber attacks, at least potentially; and this may be of interest to the Baltic countries (as well as to space, but this interests them much less). And that was enough.
Interestingly, the most recent weapon used against the Baltic countries has not enjoyed equal inclusion: illegal immigration. Iraqis and Syrians fly to Misk and are escorted to the Lithuanian border , prompting Vilnius to shout "hybrid attack form against Europe". He may be right but, if he did, then Turkey too was and wages hybrid war on Europe and, if so, NATO would have to declare war on Turkey. Which is not given.
Indeed, the military threat to the Baltic states is clearly overestimated. When he took Crimea, Putin intended to secure his main naval base on the Black Sea, therefore on the Mediterranean… not on the Baltic; the NATO member most directly threatened is Turkey… not the Baltics. Likewise, the Donbass rebellion serves Putin to counter Ukraine's accession to NATO… but the Baltics are already there in NATO. In short, the question of the Poles and the Baltic countries is only a side-show and, rightly, it has been treated as such.
* * *
We cannot say about the question of "human rights", except for the tasty curtain put on by the two when they met in Geneva: with Biden saying "Navalny" and Putin replying "Guantanamo". The first's warning (if Navalny died in prison "the consequences would be devastating for Russia") seems to have set a very low obstacle, easy for Putin to accept.
* * *
Then there is the question of cyber-attacks . Category to which the intrusion into public and private IT systems belongs above all, with the aim of stealing data or infecting networks. In full, we may be allowed to include the long-standing controversy over Russian interference in Western electoral campaigns in the cyber-attacks chapter. One part was traced back to organizations of the Russian state, another part to unspecified Chinese . Of another part we still do not know well, so Ian Bremmer : “uncertainties about the origin of many of the cyber attacks. The FBI has traced back to the origin of some, but in most cases there are strong clues, a trace of the origin but no certain evidence ". Or not, being the stuff of spies it is impossible to know.
The two sides have agreed on a contact committee, which will also discuss some mutual extradition agreement. More important, Biden has set out a list of infrastructures that must not be touched: here too, a very low obstacle, easy for Putin to accept.
* * *
All these concessions, in exchange for what? Of a common action to contain China, everyone says. Putin is asked to go with the United States against China or, at least, to take a neutral position. Will he accept? A ferocious document from the very conservative Center for Security Policy says no: "The deal is doomed to failure . " As for us, we cannot say. We imagine it will depend on the American willingness to neutralize Ukraine, to recognize the geographic sphere of influence that the Russians claim. Availability that seems anything but certain.
* * *
The German Question – Some say the United States is using the Russian threat to hold the Alliance together. But this is denied by the behavior of the main European ally, Germany, which, in the years following the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, almost completed the doubling of a significant gas pipeline, the North Stream 2 which, passing under the Baltic Sea cuts Ukraine out of the big gas game. A very clear concept to Secretary of State Antony Blinken : “It is a Russian geopolitical project, destined to divide Europe and weaken European energy security”. Likewise, Germany is a long way from meeting its military spending commitments and shows no intention of correcting itself. In 2018, these two facts had triggered the very tough stance of former President Trump: "America can also go its own way," he said at the NATO summit. Biden, on the other hand, has renounced sanctions against the pipeline operating company and, as regards military spending, has argued that the late allies are "on track".
Add to this the trade truce, with the suspension of cross-duties following the dispute over subsidies to Boing and Airbus and other duties on aluminum and steel. Even though there remain differences , even profound ones, with regard to the new European taxes ( carbon-tax at the borders and digital tax ) that Brussels imagines it wants to impose.
On all these matters, and as regards Ukraine, Washington has naturally not withdrawn its requests, on the contrary it maintains them. But treats. And this is, objectively, an enormous concession to Germany; as well as Putin, an objectively ally of the latter.
* * *
The Merkel question – In exchange for what? Here too, of a common containment action by China, everyone says. A first step took place in May, with the suspension of the EU-China agreement in principle on investments , signed the previous December despite strong opposition from the incoming American administration. At the time, the positions of Biden and Merkel were frontally opposite.
Today, a different nuance emerges from the German newspapers. The objection no longer concerns China, but Russia: “the US imports energy from Russia, more precisely oil… and more oil than the United States imports from Saudi Arabia”, why shouldn't Germany import gas? And then, “the Chancellor drew attention to another problem: the ever closer military and political cooperation between Russia and China” that is, don't you want to contain both of them together?
Wind, voices from the sen fled. Nothing to indicate a mature strategy. In fact, the final communiqué of the NATO summit contains expressions of warning but, Die Welt underlines: “Biden has been remarkably reluctant to criticize Beijing. On this day, he did everything he could not to provoke Merkel . Because the Chancellor focuses above all on dialogue with China… we must 'not deny' the problems with China, but also 'not overestimate them', 'we must find the right balance' ”. Merkel remains as pro-Chinese as she is pro-Russian.
But the old woman is out, in September she will finally be consigned to history. A second article in Die Welt comments: “on July 15 Biden will receive Merkel for her last visit to the White House. Washington can rightly hope that Merkel's successor will allow a duly critical policy towards China ”. And, in light of Biden's many concessions, it appears to be a fairly reliable prediction.
* * *
The Macron question – Finally, Macron. The poor fellow has seen the world collapse on him. A few days ago "he underlined, ironically, that China is not, a priori, within the range of action of an alliance called to defend the European territory", but even at the NATO summit he insisted on the principle of Europe's strategic autonomy . Evidently the vase was full and deserved a very harsh replica of the Dutch Rutte.
In fact, the Russian threat is not so much for the Americans to hold the Alliance together as for the EU to keep up the frenzy of a European defense , which does not exist and will never exist. Not least, because the Americans don't want it.
The repercussions, on the rest of the mythical European construction , of this umpteenth failure will be indirect. But, of course, Europe can no longer be expected to move forward . It will no longer be possible to blather that the single currency prefigures a mythical federation, which does not exist and will never exist. It is a good time that Macron, as well as Merkel, is consigned to history. Of both, it will make meatballs.
The post Biden's gifts in Moscow and Berlin, but Merkel remains pro-Chinese (and pro-Russian) appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/regali-di-biden-a-mosca-e-berlino-ma-merkel-resta-filo-cinese-e-filo-russa/ on Fri, 18 Jun 2021 04:03:00 +0000.