Political Analysis: Joe, Vlad and the Biden Doctrine
By analyzing the Biden-Putin Summit and U.S.-Russian relations, we can begin to understand Biden’s approach to foreign policy, envision the future of American diplomacy under the Biden administration and predict what could ultimately be the president’s lasting diplomatic doctrine.
It was as if the production was scripted and the stage perfectly set to illustrate two extraordinarily different worlds colliding. Separate lakeside venues, press conferences, and seating arrangements served as symbols that highlighted the widely-acknowledged contrasts between President Joe Biden’s America and President Vladamir Putin’s Russia.
On June 16, 2021, in Geneva, Switzerland, U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladamir Putin met for their long-awaited and duly anticipated summit, marking the end of Biden’s week-long “European tour”.
The summit, proposed by Biden during a phone call between the two leaders in mid-April, was a response to increasing Russian aggressions and military presence along the Ukranian border, human rights violations in the suspected “state-sponsored” poisoning and jailing of Russian opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, immense and extensive cyberattacks against U.S. infrastructure, Russian interference in U.S. elections and their military and diplomatic presence within the Middle East. With plenty to address, Biden’s European tour and meeting with Putin offered the U.S., its allies and the world its first look into his materializing method of diplomacy as president.
The Biden-Putin Summit
Geopolitical theater between a democratic leader and a dangerous, brutish authoritarian is always destined for major publicity. Throughout his European tour — a trip that perhaps served as practice for his upcoming summit — Biden touted an aggressive approach. “…[I will] then meet with Mr. Putin, to let him know what I want him to know,” Biden proclaimed to the Royal Air Force on his visit to the United Kingdom. Despite an aggressive approach, in his first meeting with Putin as President, Biden guaranteed there were no “deliverables” or set pre-conditions, ensuring a summit where mere desires would be discussed and understandings could be established.
According to Dr. Sven Steinmo, a professor of political science who specializes in institutional theory, evolutionary theory, comparative public policy and comparative historical analysis at the University of Colorado Boulder, “The expectations had been made intentionally low…reporters couldn’t point to ‘X’, nor highlight any failures.” This is an example of the genius and savvy that makes up “Diplomatic Joe.” After the photo-ops had ceased, the leaders discussed a variety of issues, most notably cybersecurity, arms control, human rights and Ukraine. When discussing cybersecurity, Biden promised to respond to any and all cyberattacks, flexing the U.S.’s significant cyber capabilities and ultimately threatening Putin, stating, “I looked at him, I said: ‘Well how would you feel if ransomware took down the pipelines from your oil fields?’ He said it would matter.”
Aside from the political posturing, both leaders made it clear what was off limits in the realm of critical infrastructure, and agreed to conduct mutual investigations into ongoing cybersecurity cases. According to Dr. David Bearce, professor of political science at the University of Colorado Boulder, by meeting, Biden and Putin “ensured safeguards made during the Cold War stayed in place.” The leaders agreed to further talks on arms control measures, including bilateral strategic stability dialogue. “Diplomatic ‘speak’ for saying: get our military experts and diplomats together to work on a mechanism that can lead to the control of new and dangerous sophisticated weapons that are coming on the scene now,” Biden said.
In their discussion of human rights, specifically in reference to the imprisonment and treatment of Russian “dissident” Alexei Navalny, Biden made it clear that the U.S. would continue to raise issues of fundamental human rights and declared that there would be “devastating consequences” should Navalny die in prison, all this despite the Kremlin’s warning to the U.S. to stay out of Russian internal affairs.
In response to Russia’s mounting military aggression and amassing of 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border in the spring, the U.S. communicated sovereignty on behalf of Ukraine, alongside their provisions of military aid and training of Ukraine for a hybrid war. In spite of this proclamation, the U.S. and Russia remain divided on this issue. The Ukrainian foreign minister has already declared they would not accept nor recognize any agreements, resolutions, or talks that do not involve Ukraine. Leading up to the summit, Ukrainian leaders and diplomats did not express a hopeful attitude that talks would de-escalate tensions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said war with Russia could “be tomorrow in their houses.” Aside from military provisions and training, Ukraine is pressing the United States to back its bid to join NATO, a move the U.S. fears would further tensions with Russia.
Biden and Putin did make progress in developing a motus apperandi regarding the Arctic as a free-zone, helping it remain a region of cooperation. The leaders also came to an agreement to work on preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, work that Dr. Bearce does not think will be successful. However, Dr. Steve Vanderheiden, a professor of political science who specializes in normative political theory and environmental politics at the University of Colorado Boulder, sees Iran as a potential area the leaders could most likely cooperate and see substantial improvement, due to “shifting geopolitics in the Middle East.” The leaders also discussed how they can prevent a resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan, highlighted by the U.S.’s removal of American troops from the country set to take effect in September of 2021. Again, Dr. Bearce remains skeptical in this area, believing that the U.S. “won’t do much about Russian presence in the Middle East.”
While divisions remain and posturing amplified around each of these issues discussed in the nearly 4 hour-long meeting, there is promise that progress was made with the summit itself considered a positive development in U.S.-Russia relations.
According to Dr. Sarah Wilson Sokhey, professor of political science at the University of Colorado Boulder, “the fact that they had the summit was an accomplishment.” She added, “while they didn’t meet as long as expected…and the summit was political theater, very staged, very scripted…Putin showed up on time.” Dr. Sokhey specializes in comparative politics and political economy with a regional focus on the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia.
Putin, known for carrying out the occasional slight against a world leader, appeared to be in rare form in Geneva. A testament of Putin’s respect for Biden, perhaps? Putin has certainly acknowledged the “radical” differences between President Trump and President Biden, and has recognized Biden’s immense political experience, both utilized through his foreign policy expertise and lifelong career in public service.
When speaking about the tough nature of meeting with Putin, Dr. Vanderheiden states,
“Biden pressed U.S. demands and handled himself against Putin, who is known to be a very difficult negotiator for past presidents.”
After meeting with each other, Biden described the tone of the entire meeting as being “good, soft.” Putin, like Biden, was as well fond of how the meeting was conducted and what it had yielded. “The meeting was constructive, no hostility, no pressure on either side,” he said. Let us not forget, this is of course not Biden’s first encounter with Putin. What some may consider a “head start”, Biden has met with Putin multiple times as vice-president, a relationship that goes back decades.
What may be the most notable accomplishment of this summit, however, is that this meeting serves as an allegory that the United States is veering away from the isolationist policies, demeanor and approach of the Trump administration. In analyzing the accomplishments of the summit, Dr. Sven Steinmo states, “The U.S. had a bad reputation for four years with no volatile improvement…the U.S. now has an improved approach toward internationalism.”
In his press conference following the summit, Biden declared the meeting with Putin to be a success, proclaiming the U.S. accomplished their three main goals: “One, identify areas of practical work our countries can do to advance mutual interests and benefit the world. Two, communicate directly that the U.S. will respond to actions that impair the U.S. and its allies’ vital interests. Three, layout each other’s countries’ priorities and values.”
U.S.-Russia Relations: A Comparative Analysis
Being two dominant actors in international politics, the state of American-Russian affairs has always been important not just for the nations involved, but the entire world. However, this relationship has always been one riddled with unpredictability, as diplomatic affairs have consistently evolved and devolved over various periods of time.
After analyzing the summit, it is important to examine U.S.-Russia relations of past administrations to understand the current relationship and what it may look like throughout Biden’s tenure. Dr. Sokhey believes that current relations between the two nations are “conventional, when they are not good.” Aside from her ardent research of the country, Dr. Sokhey is also an avid visitor of the Russian Federation. In addressing the ever-changing relationship between the two nations, she says U.S.-Russian relations were “particularly good in the early 2000s, but we’ve seen a steady decline in the last 10 years.”
When Biden entered office, no one expected his relationship with Putin to be as reverent as JFK-Khrushchev proceeding the Cuban Missile Crisis, but not as contentious as Reagan-Gorbachev during the height of the Cold War. Instead, it is believed the Biden-Putin relationship will be a balance of both. The strongest comparison of Biden-Putin relations to a past administration, according to Dr. Bearce, is that of Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev. A relationship that subsisted during the 70s’ Détente era, which saw the cultivation of the second SALT treaty, was one based on a mutual understanding in which Dr. Bearce described as being, “you stay out of our stuff, we will stay out of yours.” He adds, “things will continue to look distant.” When comparing the Biden-Putin relationship to that of Trump-Putin, Dr. Bearce noted, “The U.S.-Russian relationship was not particularly good under Trump…the Trump administration wasn’t particularly better, just nicer.” If these strong comparisons expectedly hold true, the Biden-Putin relationship appears to be one that will also mimic that of the Obama Administration, only where slightly greater reverence and effectiveness will come into fruition.
When asked why it appears the Biden administration will be more effective in its relations with Russia than the Obama administration, Dr. Sokhey said, “The context is very different…President Obama had more opportunity of possibility.” She also noted the different circumstances and issues the 44th and 46th Presidents have and are facing in regards to Russia, and believes that what had partly damaged the Obama-Putin relationship was Russia’s disdain for Obama’s appointment of Michael McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, a former professor of political science at the University of Stanford. His appointment proved to be detrimental for U.S. and Russian diplomatic ties.
Dr. Sokhey adds that while “the Obama administration tried to do a reset in Russian relations which didn’t work very well,” she believes the summit will “initiate an adversarial but respectful” relationship. The leading argument is that because President Biden is a more experienced, vetted foreign diplomat, one of the primary reasons he was chosen to run as vice-president on the Obama ticket in 2008, and has had the most interactions and engagement with Putin of any American diplomat, he is predictably deemed to have more success than his former colleague and predecessor. Nonetheless, it seems the general consensus is that U.S.-Russia relations will display more of the same. Both Dr. Steinmo and Dr. Vanderheiden agreed that a primary reason for relations remaining stagnant and complex is because Putin has no end-date, while U.S. Presidents come and go. When referring to issues brought up against Putin during the summit, Dr. Vanderheiden said, “Putin can just continue to deny his role and await the next election rather than give up any Russian power on these issues.”
Only should Putin die in office, which remains highly unlikely for the foreseeable future, should Russia realistically experience a change in power. Despite what appears will ultimately become a conventional U.S.-Russian relationship, there is nothing conventional nor scarce about the issues Biden has and will encounter against Putin and his Russia.
The Future of American Diplomacy and the Biden Doctrine
It is no secret that President Biden and former President Trump differ drastically in their approaches to foreign policy and diplomacy. Since entering office, Biden has been tasked with undoing Trump’s isolationist policies and rebuilding America’s diplomatic standing throughout the international community. In rejoining the Paris Agreement and World Health Organization, organizations the Trump administration abandoned, Biden had signaled to the world “America is back.” Dr. Bearce, who’s research focuses on international political economy and international organizations, said, “Participation in international organizations is a useful thing. They are means to an end, not an end. They are a mechanism to something else.” International involvement and cooperation is vital to American interests, and our diplomacy fails without it.
The Biden administration’s embrace of internationalism has yielded more positive, healthier relations with European nations and their leaders and diplomats, as evident in Biden’s first overseas trip on his European tour. According to Dr. Vanderheiden, “a return to an alliance with Europe” is crucial for Biden foreign policy. He continues by saying Biden must “use diplomacy and ‘soft power’, rather than grandstanding.” Throughout this European tour, Biden attended summits and met with world leaders, where they discussed economic and pandemic recoveries, strengthened relations and trust with NATO, examined the EU, trade and technology policy, and re-analyzed Trump-era tariffs. In these proceedings, Biden demonstrated rare diplomatic form that had been mostly absent during the Trump tenure.
According to Dr. Steinmo, Biden’s approach to foreign policy “has been cautious…he is rebuilding bridges Trump had burned down.” However, Dr. Steinmo does recognize particular gains in these Trump-era actions, believing said actions have justly called for the re-analyzation of certain partnerships with international institutions. Using the same analogy, he says, “Some bridges needed to be built differently and refined…Trump required international organizations to pay a greater share.” Nonetheless, a consensus is reached that the solution is not to completely remove the U.S. from certain international organizations and partnerships, but instead refine our relationships and engagement within them. This is a notion very well understood from an experienced diplomat such as Biden.
Like his predecessor Obama, we can expect Biden to distance himself and the nation from the diplomatic headache that has become the Middle East, evident through his planned withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan later this year. However, Biden will likely further U.S. involvement within Iran, amid several bombing campaigns targeting Iranian-backed militias and plans to renegotiate an Iranian nuclear deal. Furthermore with nuclear weapons, it is expected that Biden will not employ much effort into relations with North Korea and its leader, Kim Jung Un. This will come as a Biden foreign policy will not particularly view them as a viable threat to American/allied interests, instead having a much stronger foreign adversary in mind.
When further exploring the foreign policy approach of the Biden and Trump administrations’, there were particular similarities that had been discovered. Biden appears to be adopting what Dr. Bearce believes to be the “Trump Doctrine,” what is essentially a “tough on China” approach, and rightfully so. As evidence, Dr. Bearce points out, “Biden has not yet ended the trade war against China that started during the Trump administration…nothing has changed visa ve China as it is a rising threat.” This doctrine adoption correlates to the fact that, according to Dr. Steinmo, “the real issue for Biden foreign policy will be China.” Biden, like Trump, recognizes China to be the U.S.’s primary foreign adversary. Dr. Steinmo adds, “the real foreign policy threat is that of Chinese technological and military advancements.”
It is telling, despite the enormous differences between Trump and Biden, that the tone on and attitude toward China is not changing. The United States and China are engaged in a Cold War that the “people’s republic” is already winning. If we refuse to acknowledge this war’s existence and fail to react appropriately, the great “American Experiment” will be seen as a failing principle and less-viable system compared to that of the Chinese authoritarian model to the rest of the developed and developing world. “We are in a race with China and the rest of the world in the 21st century,” Biden said.
I have always argued that I would rather finish the race second with the use of democracy, than break the rules through authoritarianism to finish first. However, there are still paths we can pursue to emerge victorious without sacrificing our democratic model.
According to Dr. Steinmo, we must “view President Biden’s domestic policy plan to improve American infrastructure as a foreign policy initiative.” When we think of infrastructure, we must include but look far beyond our standard roads, bridges and railways to entail modern infrastructure such as broadband, automation, cybersecurity, technology, etc. This is where nations like China are ahead in the game, areas they have been able to excel in without any significant internal or bureaucratic obstruction. Tariffs, political posturing and trade wars can only get us so far; we must become as internally efficient as they have become. Afterall, we cannot win the race if we do not catch up first. Why is this important to consider? It highlights the fact that Biden’s future domestic policy will be directly tied to his future foreign policy.
“Every president can be identified with their foreign policy doctrine,” said Dr. Bearce. It is important to note that Biden is by no means an internationalist. As an experienced, knowledgeable diplomat, his foreign policy approach is conventional and traditional of most U.S. presidencies. When it comes to international organizations, alliances and diplomatic partnerships, he will maintain U.S. involvement but strictly retain the nation’s autonomy in focusing on the advancement of its own personal interests, both foreign and domestic. As former U.S. Secretary of State and national security advisor Henry Kissinger said, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”
Biden will rebuild and strengthen European alliances to the degree previous administrations before Trump had sustained, and more than likely mimic the Obama administration’s approach to North Korea, but differ from his predecessor in being tougher on Iran while simultaneously decreasing U.S. involvement in the Middle East from neighboring countries.
Most profoundly, however, Biden will adopt the Trump Doctrine’s “tough on China” approach, simply, because he must.
Thus, the Biden Doctrine, appearing internationalist on the surface, is truly a veiled return to traditional American foreign policy. A humble yet powerful declaration, “America is back.”
