Enlarge image
Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden in Geneva, June 16, 2021
Photo:
Pool / Getty Images
In the last few days there were very, very nice pictures from the G7 meeting - isn't the little son of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson totally cute?
- to hear almost sentimental expressions of friendship at the NATO summit and to hear harsh tones in the run-up to the meeting between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin.
Whom should all this benefit?
The self-portrayal of the main actors.
Nobody else.
One can rightly think of Putin as a criminal politician and still appreciate his sense of sarcasm. Joe Biden talked about his family, including his mother, said the Russian head of state with a mild smile after the summit meeting with the US president. Perhaps that was "not so relevant," but it helped him to get to know the man a little better. And: "I saw a glimmer of hope in his eyes." An allusion to the fact that Biden had allegedly said to him at an encounter in 2011 that he saw "no soul" in his eyes.
This swipe was nicely mean, and it would be possible to laugh at it if it were about something less important than world peace. But that was what it was about, and whoever had followed the imposing demeanor of both statesmen in the run-up to the meeting had to wonder whether they were actually aware of it. Who makes whom wait, who shakes hands with whom? If such questions are considered important, then politicians can pound themselves on their chests right away. Incidentally, there is deliberately no gendering at this point. Such follies, at least these, are alien to politicians. Worldwide.
In terms of image cultivation, it was clear from the start that both Biden and Putin would achieve their goals. What people think about their performances in Japan, China, Turkey or Germany seemed to be quite indifferent to them. They mainly played for their home audience.
Putin gave the sovereign statesman who met the President of the United States on an equal footing. Nice performance, applause from the scene. For Biden it was about differentiating himself from his predecessor Donald Trump. So he demonstrated cordiality towards his allies and inexorable toughness towards rivals and opponents. Red lines everywhere. That goes down well at home, even if - thank God - it is a little non-binding. I am grateful that Biden did not specifically explain what he was actually planning if Putin crossed one of his lines. That could scare me.
But fear is a feeling that no longer seems to be widespread in the democratic part of the world. Up until the 1980s, there was great concern in all political camps in the Federal Republic that Europe was threatening to become a nuclear battlefield. The only argument was about the correct answer to the danger. And today? Has the conviction prevailed that the West has won and is allowed to put all other powers in their place. This is a life-threatening form of overconfidence.
The humiliation of strong military powers has never been a wise strategy, any more than a lack of consideration for their security interests.
Putin could be the nicest man of all time - if he accompanied the admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO with a friendly nod, then he was acting irresponsibly with regard to Russian interests.
He won't do that.
NATO plans to develop a new strategic concept.
So far, Russia has been seen as a potential partner, China is not mentioned at all.
That should change.
China does not share "our values", has been heard repeatedly lately.
Potzblitz!
Really?
And the earth revolves around the sun?
If common values are the prerequisite for serious negotiations, then we can save the costs for the Foreign Office.
Willy Brandt's policy of détente was not based on sympathy for the GDR leadership or communism, but on the knowledge that it is important to use the - perhaps few - common interests that we have with opponents or even enemies in such a way that the corridor of possible negotiation topics expanded.
But human rights, human rights!
Yes, especially human rights.
Silent diplomacy, which can only become effective through a long process of building trust, achieves more than martial television images and martial threats that are effective in advertising.
Counterexamples?
I am waiting eagerly.
NATO is - it seems old-fashioned to remind you - a defense alliance.
Not an alliance that is supposed to enforce “our values” and our economic interests worldwide.
If necessary with force.
After the summit, both sides were conciliatory, at least. You want to keep talking about various topics and send the withdrawn ambassadors back to their respective locations. Where have we come to when even such poor explanations make things easier? Yes, I was taught to be afraid.
