Biden and Putin’s Spat: Cynicism, Seriousness, and Worrying Repercussions.

When a head of state labels another as a "crazy son of a bitch," and the opposing leader's team responds by flexing nuclear muscles, hurling accusations of dementia, and taking personal jabs at the president's son – and consequently, his mother – it becomes more than a mere spectacle; it becomes a source of anxiety and alarm. In the case of U.S. President Joe Biden's description of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin as a madman, using obscene language, it was a manifestation of his outrage against Putin's actions towards political opponents, notably the treatment of the late dissident Alexei Navalny in prison and the denial of his mother's right to receive his body. Biden's reaction also stemmed from his displeasure with Putin's territorial gains in the ongoing war against Ukraine. It's plausible that Biden had detected a level of disdain in Putin's earlier statements, particularly when the Russian president claimed that Russia favoured Biden over former President Donald Trump. But ultimately, the United States opted not for just rhetoric but took substantial action before the war of words unfolded – implementing a comprehensive package of sanctions against Russia. Simultaneously, Russia delivered nuclear messages in tandem with the row, as Putin reminded the West of Russian nuclear capabilities, personally taking to the skies aboard the nuclear-capable bomber known as the "White Swan."

Vladimir Putin aspires to rejuvenate the perception of Soviet greatness among the Russian people, aiming to dispel any notion of Russia's weakness, especially in light of its performance in the Ukrainian war. While confident of victory in the upcoming presidential elections scheduled for March 15-17, Putin seeks to approach them in a manner that aligns with his vision and sets them apart from the tumultuous American elections characterized by court drama, corruption charges, and signs of presidential dementia.

The foreign policy dimensions surrounding both the American and Russian presidential elections extend from Europe to the Middle East and the Red Sea. But before delving into this aspect, let's revisit the insults and disputes, examine the bilateral U.S. measures towards Russia, and explore the dynamics of the presidential elections.

Contrary to the notion that Vladimir Putin favours Joe Biden's re-election, several reasons suggest otherwise. Chief among them is Biden's pivotal role in galvanizing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and fortifying its support for Ukraine, ultimately expanding NATO membership under Biden's leadership. Indeed, during Biden's tenure, the Ukrainian war prompted Finland and Sweden to join the alliance, further encircling Russia, with a commitment for Ukraine to join at a later stage.

Throughout Biden's presidency, Russia's international standing deteriorated due to American and European sanctions and the dissatisfaction among Russia's traditional allies and friends with its actions in the Ukrainian war. Even China refrained from immediately supporting Russia on Ukraine, while Turkey strategically leveraged its position within NATO, enabling President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an to not only challenge the Russian president but also reshape the dynamics and standards of the bilateral relationship between the two leaders and their respective countries.

In contrast to Biden, Donald Trump is vowing to resolve the Ukrainian conflict not through military decisiveness favouring Ukraine but through a negotiated deal with Vladimir Putin. Trump has also pledged unequivocally that Ukraine will not join NATO under his watch, emphasizing his commitment to ensure this outcome.

In other words, Donald Trump diverges significantly from Joe Biden on the NATO and U.S.-European relations issue and this aligns with Putin's desires. Thus, Putin's statements suggesting Russia prefers Biden over Trump are misleading and a cynical tactic to unsettle Biden. Biden knows this, and he and his party hold lingering resentment towards Putin for historical reasons. They accuse him of meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections that led to the victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. However, this does not imply that Russia eagerly awaits Trump's presidency, as Moscow also fears his unpredictability.

Putin went beyond ridiculing Biden as the latter called him a "crazy son of a bitch." Putin personally took to the skies aboard a strategic modernized Soviet-era nuclear bomber, to remind the West of its potency in potential nuclear conflicts. In response, the United States explicitly cautioned against launching nuclear anti-satellite weapons into space, categorizing it as a perilous escalation in Cold War power dynamics and a breach of the 1967 treaty prohibiting the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. Moscow denied having any intentions to manufacture and launch weapons into space, accusing Washington of a "malicious fabrication" aimed at securing Congress's approval for military aid to Ukraine. Concurrently, U.S. diplomatic efforts mobilized to garner international condemnation against Russia, reaching out not only to the Group of Seven industrialized nations but also to China and India, urging them to censure Moscow for jeopardizing global stability with a potential nuclear arms race in space.

The U.S. Treasury, in a significant move, announced last Thursday sanctions on over 500 targets and individuals, coinciding with the second anniversary of the Russian-Ukrainian war. This marks the most extensive U.S. sanctions package against Moscow to date. Some of these sanctions, crafted in collaboration with other nations, specifically target the Russian military-industrial complex and companies in third countries facilitating Russia's access to sanctioned goods. This comprehensive economic stranglehold aims to exert pressure on Russia through various gateways, including its connection with Turkey.

The stringent sanctions, some of which have been adopted by Britain, target not only ammunition production but also electronics, oil, and diamonds. The primary objective is to strip Putin of the resources crucial for funding his faltering war, as emphasized by UK Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, and degrade Putin's arsenal of weapons. Additionally, London has announced its intention to introduce further measures to counter the activities of a "ghost fleet" of oil tankers, with ownership obscured to circumvent sanctions on Russia. Europe has also implemented impactful sanctions.

These sanctions are not a show of force nor farce; they carry profound consequences for Russia and Putin, aiming to increase his international isolation. But today, isolation is not limited to Russia. It impacts the United States, not due to the conflict in Ukraine but rather because of American stance on the Gaza conflict.

At the G20 meeting in Brazil, attended by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the United States found itself isolated, facing criticism for shielding Israel from accountability. Using its veto power for the third time, it blocked a Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. A technical error allowed a group of journalists to listen in to a closed session where ministers spoke candidly, delivering sharp criticisms against Washington, even from close allies like Australia. Brazil and South Africa, along with other nations, expressed dissatisfaction with U.S. protection of Israel and strong displeasure with Israeli actions against civilians in Gaza. Countries such as Spain, Ireland, and Argentina were among those displaying dismay and anger too.

Blinken responded to the criticism with diplomatic finesse, avoiding confrontation and escalation, stating, "There may be differences over tactics … but we're trying to focus on actually getting results." Indeed, Biden's team, comprising Blinken, Brett McGurk, who is in charge of the Middle East file at the White House; and CIA Chief William Burns, continues to seek a new formula to resolve the Gaza crisis.

Indeed, a "flexible formula” is being developed by the U.S. team to revive the two-state solution, traditionally defined as the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel but rejected as such by the latter. The Americans want to persuade Israel to approve the formula and to persuade Arab countries to positively respond in the event of Israel's approval. The objective is to keep the idea of a two-state solution on the agenda as the situation is de-escalated, with plans for further discussions on its activation in the future. In simpler terms, a clear definition of the two-state solution would be temporarily set aside, encapsulated in the ambiguity of flexibility and constructive formulations to prevent further entanglement in a deadlock.

The Gaza issue holds less significance for Russia, deeply engrossed in its Ukrainian, European, and American priorities. What carries weight for Russia are the assurances it has received from Iran and the Houthis, assuring that operations in the Red Sea will not impact Russian, Chinese, or any other interests. The Kremlin remains indifferent to the security of international navigation, particularly if it pertains to Western navigation. In fact, Russia wishes for its escalation in that case.

President Putin will clarify the country's situation in his speech on the 29th?of February, when he is expected to say that the West has now become an "enemy" – not just that it is no longer a friend of Russia. This underscores the serious deterioration in relations, with all official ties between the United States and Russia severed, and no foreseeable prospect of their restoration. There is a fear that tensions may escalate, reaching a dangerous confrontation. The issue is not merely a passing "outburst" with caustic expressions or unnerving leaders of nuclear states. The danger lies in the breakdown of communication between the two nations.

International confusion is evident in various files, notably Ukraine and Israel-Gaza for the Europeans. The ongoing discussions do not focus on a comprehensive resolution to conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, they settle for the limits of "crisis management" and working towards "lasting stability," not towards achieving a "peaceful settlement" or peace with unequivocal guarantees for Israeli security. Russia is outside the scope of the U.S. search for a new "mechanism" based on de-escalation and diplomatic resolution with vague assurances.

Washington's focus is on the new axis that includes influential Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar, which has special relations with Hamas - although, as sources state, it does not currently have leverage over Yahya Sinwar, the military leader of Hamas who initiated the attacks on October 7th. His fate, whether alive or dead, inside or outside Gaza, is closely linked to the fate of Gaza.

One source familiar with U.S. proposals mentioned that the Biden team wants to pressure the three "H" entities: Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis this through Iran, convincing Iran to persuade the "H" entities to de-escalate, by serving as the backchannel for crisis management and reaching a solution that satisfies all parties.

For these reasons, diplomatic sources from Gulf Arab countries, requesting anonymity, state that there is no concern about the war expanding to Lebanon because Iran is on board with U.S. efforts. There is no fear of Hezbollah in Lebanon or Israel on its southern borders, as both are weakened and drained. What also restrains them is the U.S.-Iranian agreement not to expand the war's scope and the U.S.-Arab agreement within the new axis to support security guarantees, coexistence, normalization, and economic partnerships. This is instead of the option of explosion, regional wars, the ignition of the Red Sea, and the return of terrorism to the global stage as a retaliatory tool.

Where does Russia stand in all of this? Let's wait and see. Vladimir Putin is in a sardonic mood, escaping forward from the consequences of sanctions. Joe Biden is in a furious mood, not only towards his Russian counterpart but also towards Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The difference is that he employs his tools with Russia without hesitance but restrains himself in the face of Israel, the spoiled child of the United States.