As one might expect from the City of London, a June 16 article in the Economist presents the Putin-Biden summit purely in British geopolitical terms, calling it a return to “traditional great power diplomacy,” but posing conflict and confrontation as a preferable way to deal with Putin, while quickly zeroing in on the China “threat.” It asserts that a “form of detente” with Russia is necessary for Biden, so he “can focus on a more pressing contest with China,” but affirms that Putin also needs a form of detente with America, “so he can focus on the more urgent business of repressing dissent and rebuilding his empire.” For the Economist, Putin is the leader of a kleptocratic regime “dominated by violent security services,...[one] that cares more about wealth than ideology, and is preoccupied with its own survival rather than a global contest with America let alone the interests of the Russian people.” It “thrives on disorder,” having invaded neighboring countries, “poisoned its opponents, and waged cyber- and information warfare against the West.”
Even the small agreements to come out of the summit—a new round of nuclear talks and returning respective ambassadors to their posts—caused a sigh of relief, the Economist explains, saying this was a “measure of how difficult relations have become since Russia annexed Crimea and launched a war in Ukraine in 2014.” (!!)
