Joe blinked first
19/4/21 20:15![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmut posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI don't know who you'd call weak here, but usually in the field of business (and politics can often be viewed as such, especially after 4 years of Trump), the weaker side in a negotiation tends to invite the stronger one, or at least the one that holds the stronger hand. Or at least the hand that's perceived as strong.
But that doesn't matter that much right now. The fact is, Biden blinked first, and he invited Putin to a meeting. More importantly, this is happening while several processes are in place.
First, not in particular order of importance, Iran. It became clear as early as 2020 that Tehran was very close to achieving their goal in enriching uranium, and achieving that would be more a matter of political decision rather than technological capability. The current US political course obviously won't stop that from happening, it'll likely even accelerate it. Iran is no stupid country, and neither is it a minor player. They know that pressure brings adaptation. And adaptation brings resilience in negotiation. Iran is also pragmatic - it's been approaching the right prospects for allies, and adapting in an ever changing global security environment.
Turkey's actions are also worth observing. Really, it's worth watching a number of countries with long geopolitical tradition. They sure do have some reflexes typical for the bigger players developed over the centuries.
Second, as an extension to the first point, the world will probably see new countries being added to the nuclear club very soon. But that's not the most important thing. It's just a consequence, or rather a sign of the new emerging global security configuration. Nukes will be one of the legitimizing factors for countries who want to actively participate in forming the new global landscape. It's just as important that the new model comes with new technologies, and the US is seriously lagging behind in that respect. I'm referring to hypersonic weapons. The latest hypersonic missile testing by the US failed earlier this month. Given the phase it was at, this means the project will have to be pushed forward by about 2 years. Russia is already there, and by the end of the year they're expected to develop not just submarines but also other launching types for that tech. When you introduce new technology, it's logical that the one creating it has developed it and (successfully) tested all the ways it could be countered as well. Or at least taken them in consideration.
Third, Ukraine. It was clear from last year that new tension and new activity was being prepared along the border with Russia, and that was confirmed as soon as the new US administration stepped in. Of course, the prepared tension in the Donbas is also related to the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The possible failure of US diplomacy cannot possibly be compensated through military action.
There'll likely be yet another, much costlier failure, and it'll be payed by Europe's people. I'm talking of the old US tactic of stirring up conflict in strategic areas (far away from home of course), re-igniting old wounds that in Europe's case tend to heal very slowly, and taking advantage of the situation. You know, Realpolitik. But the only one who'd truly win from such a conflict would be Russia.
From Europe's perspective, it's important to keep dialogue alive, because things could get very messy very fast for the entire region. Right now, Europe is with its pants down, and the true pressure is yet to come.
But that doesn't matter that much right now. The fact is, Biden blinked first, and he invited Putin to a meeting. More importantly, this is happening while several processes are in place.
First, not in particular order of importance, Iran. It became clear as early as 2020 that Tehran was very close to achieving their goal in enriching uranium, and achieving that would be more a matter of political decision rather than technological capability. The current US political course obviously won't stop that from happening, it'll likely even accelerate it. Iran is no stupid country, and neither is it a minor player. They know that pressure brings adaptation. And adaptation brings resilience in negotiation. Iran is also pragmatic - it's been approaching the right prospects for allies, and adapting in an ever changing global security environment.
Turkey's actions are also worth observing. Really, it's worth watching a number of countries with long geopolitical tradition. They sure do have some reflexes typical for the bigger players developed over the centuries.
Second, as an extension to the first point, the world will probably see new countries being added to the nuclear club very soon. But that's not the most important thing. It's just a consequence, or rather a sign of the new emerging global security configuration. Nukes will be one of the legitimizing factors for countries who want to actively participate in forming the new global landscape. It's just as important that the new model comes with new technologies, and the US is seriously lagging behind in that respect. I'm referring to hypersonic weapons. The latest hypersonic missile testing by the US failed earlier this month. Given the phase it was at, this means the project will have to be pushed forward by about 2 years. Russia is already there, and by the end of the year they're expected to develop not just submarines but also other launching types for that tech. When you introduce new technology, it's logical that the one creating it has developed it and (successfully) tested all the ways it could be countered as well. Or at least taken them in consideration.
Third, Ukraine. It was clear from last year that new tension and new activity was being prepared along the border with Russia, and that was confirmed as soon as the new US administration stepped in. Of course, the prepared tension in the Donbas is also related to the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The possible failure of US diplomacy cannot possibly be compensated through military action.
There'll likely be yet another, much costlier failure, and it'll be payed by Europe's people. I'm talking of the old US tactic of stirring up conflict in strategic areas (far away from home of course), re-igniting old wounds that in Europe's case tend to heal very slowly, and taking advantage of the situation. You know, Realpolitik. But the only one who'd truly win from such a conflict would be Russia.
From Europe's perspective, it's important to keep dialogue alive, because things could get very messy very fast for the entire region. Right now, Europe is with its pants down, and the true pressure is yet to come.
