Thread by @DrRadchenko

People are surprised as to why I seem to be advocating against the Biden-Putin summit despite the importance of having open channels of communication for strategic stability. Let me explain: 👇🏿

Summits are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end. You don't just meet to talk for talk's sake. You meet to solve problems. Sometimes you also meet to get a sense of your partner: what sort of person are they?

Both sides agree that there are no problems this summit can resolve. No new treaties to be signed. Neither side has shown willingness to compromise. The players are well known to one another. It's not like Biden will learn something about Putin by looking at him at close range.

What Biden will do by meeting Putin is *recognise* him, and through this recognition, legitimise Putin to domestic audiences at a time - it should be kept in mind - the regime is resorting to a draconian crackdown against the civil society.

This legitimating aspect of summitry is well known, and it was the underpinning motives in the unending Soviet quest for summits with the US during the Cold War. Nothing legitimated Soviet great power pretensions better than being acknowledged as such by the US.

Very few of these summits actually resulted in improved relations, and those that did only did because the Soviets were a priori interested in improving relations. Examples: 1972, 1973, 1975 (Moscow, Washington, Helsinki), 1985, 86, 87, 88, 89 (all involving Gorbachev).

The summits that failed because neither side ultimately was willing to improve relations: 1959 (Camp David), 1960 (Paris), 1961 (Vienna), 1979 (Vienna). I don't know where to class 1955 and 1974: neither here nor there.

But what about this key argument: maintaining channels of communication? Well, history shows that summits aren't great for this purpose. 1960/61 were followed by the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis. 1979 was followed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

There was wonderful communication in 1972-75 but that did not prevent crises, as in Angola or the Middle East. Nor did it solve the underlying problems of Soviet-US relations. Also, there's always the telephone for anyone keen to keep communications going. A great invention!

The key lesson: unless you are meeting with Gorbachev, summits tend to flop. And Putin is no Gorbachev.