From the moment John Kerry's trip to Russian President Vladimir Putin's summer residence in Sochi on the Black Sea was announced,
it was hard to see what the U.S. secretary of state hoped to achieve.
Indeed, of the three objectives on Kerry's official agenda -- seeking
Russian assistance in ending the Syrian civil war, bringing peace to
Ukraine and "keeping the lines of communication open" between the U.S.
and Russia -- not one made sense.
On
Syria, for example, there is no incentive for Putin to let the conflict
abate and every incentive to exacerbate it. The continuation of the
Syrian civil war, which destabilizes Iraq, bolsters Iran and weakens
moderate Arab regimes allied with the United States is clearly in
Russia's geopolitical interests.
As to Ukraine, patriotic mobilization is Putin's strongest legitimizing factor given the sharp decline in Russia's GDP, inflation, the volatile ruble and (very likely in the near future) the end of government subsidies to numerous enterprises,
which will mean mass firings of workers, especially doctors and
teachers. Defending Russian-speakers in Ukraine against the alleged
"fascist junta in Kiev," and Russia against Ukraine as NATO's "foreign legion"
(Putin's words) is a vital domestic political imperative. With this in
mind, it is unclear why Putin would want to lessen the tension by ending
the war on Ukraine.
So why exactly was Kerry's trip necessary?
Keeping
lines of communication open is what ambassadors are for -- or deputy
assistant secretaries of state. Isn't it obvious that a U.S. secretary
of state joining Putin at his vacation palace during one of the most
strident confrontations between a post-Soviet Russia and the West will
only bolster Putin's image of a feared and thus respected or, better
yet, "indispensable" Russia? Apparently deaf to the public implications
of this kind of diplomacy, John Kerry did not seem to notice -- or care.
Still,
one should perhaps give the U.S. secretary of state the benefit of the
doubt. Was there an ace up Kerry's sleeve, something the secretary could
use to cajole or threaten Putin? Would Kerry reveal something that
would force the Kremlin dictator to alter his geopolitical calculus?
Alas,
as the press conference after the talks made painfully clear, not only
did Kerry not have anything to show for his efforts, but his
post-meeting performance also was a gooey stream of unctuous clichés,
nonsequiturs, tautologies and euphemisms that underscored Putin's
diplomatic victory.
The most frequently
used words in Kerry's opening remarks seemed to be "thanks" and
"grateful" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and, even more so,
to President Putin, whom Kerry said he was "privileged" to see. Given
that nothing was achieved, why was the U.S. secretary of state grateful?
Was he "especially grateful to President Putin" for devoting all that
time to explain Russia's position? For anyone who knows anything about
the Russian dictator, this translates into an hourlong harangue and
denunciation of the United States, NATO and European Union. Kerry also
made sure that everyone knew that President Obama, too, was thankful.
It got worse.
The secretary hailed the Geneva accords
on chemical weapons as an example of what great things could be
achieved "when the U.S. and Russia work together." One would think that
Kerry would be embarrassed to recall how Russia saved the Bashar
al-Assad regime by seizing on Kerry's remarks about the Syrian regime's
giving up chemical weapons as the quid pro quo for America stepping away
from the self-announced "red line" and a bombing campaign, which likely
would have toppled al-Assad. Since then, the Syrian regime has smoothly
transitioned from killing women and children with chemical weapons to
decimating them with barrel bombs stuffed with nails (and lately, it is
alleged, resorted to chlorine, apparently overlooked in the surrender of other lethal chemicals).
No comments:
Post a Comment