An In-Depth Look at the Meeting of the Invincible: Why Summits Matter

A meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska wouldn't be the end of the global upheavals we are currently experiencing, but the start of a long journey. This summit would hold a fundamental meaning for all of us.

History offers few examples of global problems being resolved at a meeting of world leaders. For one, situations demanding such high-level attention are rare. The current climate, however, fits this description perfectly: The U.S., since the start of the special military operation, has declared its goal to be Russia's "strategic defeat," while Moscow has challenged the West's monopoly on world affairs.

Secondly, leaders of countries with significant global influence are extremely busy. They do not waste time on problems that can be handled at a lower level. Finally, it's rare for a top-level discussion on a specific issue to influence the course of international policy as a whole.

It's no surprise that after a potential meeting between the Russian and U.S. heads of state in Alaska was announced, many observers began drawing comparisons to events from 200 years ago, like the meeting between the Russian and French emperors on a raft in the middle of the Neman River. As we know, that meeting did not end well. Just five years later, Napoleon saw no better option than to attack Russia, leading to his downfall. Later, in 1815, the Congress of Vienna created the foundation for European order for the next 100 years. However, Russia was the only country represented by its head of state on a relatively constant basis, as Tsar Alexander I felt it was his personal duty to express his vision for an ideal Europe. He had little success; representatives of the European powers wanted to talk about interests, not values - a point Henry Kissinger perfectly captured in his doctoral dissertation.

Earlier history also provides examples of private talks between heads of powerful states. Yet such conversations rarely resulted in significant changes in the relationship between their nations. On the contrary, history is filled with cases where top-level meetings didn't end a serious confrontation but preceded it. European monarchs would meet, fail to reach an agreement, and start a war. After the fighting, their official representatives would be sent to iron out the details, all while understanding that the latest "eternal peace" was nothing more than a temporary ceasefire before the next round of conflict.

Let's hope that this time, the role of a pre-conflict meeting was played by the Russia-U.S. summit in Switzerland in the summer of 2021. Reports indicate that the meeting had a pre-war feel, with both sides concluding that their differences could not be resolved through negotiation. The aftermath was the pumping of weapons into the Kyiv regime, the preparation of Western sanctions against Moscow, and Russia's accelerated military-technical preparations.

Asian history, in general, lacks the tradition of heads of state meeting to resolve critical political issues. The status of a Chinese or Japanese emperor simply did not allow for a meeting of equals, as such a concept could not exist under their own domestic laws.

The negotiations that formed the basis of the modern "world order" and international law - the preparation of the Peace of Westphalia in Europe in 1648 - were conducted by several hundred officials representing all the rival parties. At the time, all participants in the Thirty Years' War were so exhausted that they simply wanted some kind of peace, lacking the human and financial resources to resist its arrival. This, in fact, is what allowed the assembled officials to create the most extensive set of rules for interstate relations in history.

So, if we look at historical experience, high-level summits are extremely rare events. And it's even rarer for them to result in fundamental changes. The practice of such a format - where the two undisputed military-political leaders of the entire international system speak directly - only became common during the Cold War of the latter half of the 20th century. This is no surprise, as it was during this era that a new phenomenon arose: the heads of just two nations making decisions that determined the fate of all humanity. Never before had this been conceivable in theory or practice.

Even if we were to imagine a hypothetical meeting between the emperors of Rome and the Chinese Empire somewhere in the 3rd or 4th centuries AD, the most heartfelt agreement or furious disagreement between them would not have altered the lives of the rest of the world. Despite their immense power, these greatest empires of antiquity did not have the ability to simply destroy the entire world by clashing in a deadly battle. But Russia, like the USSR before it, and the U.S. are fully capable of this. And for the last three years, they have often balanced on the brink of a journey from which there would be no return. This is the reason for the importance of what could happen in Alaska, even if the meeting itself does not produce an immediate diplomatic breakthrough.

The phenomenon of high-level summits between the world's most powerful nations is a direct result of the nuclear age, whether we like it or not. And it would be naive to view such events as ordinary meetings of heads of state, even very influential ones. The value of direct negotiations between Russia and the U.S. is determined by the importance of the relationship between the two countries for all of humanity. These negotiations are themselves the best indicator of how close or far we are from an always-possible nuclear apocalypse.

At the same time, the U.S. would be a leader for the collective West, fully determining the fate of each member, even Great Britain and France, which have their own nuclear arsenals. Russia, in turn, would not be acting alone; the eyes of what we call the "global majority" would be on it. This is the collection of dozens of countries around the world that are unhappy with the West's omnipotence but unable to overcome it on their own.

Does this mean that an Alaska summit could lay the foundation for a new international order? Most likely, no.

First, because the concept of an international order itself is becoming a thing of the past. Any "order" requires a force to maintain it by compelling others to follow the rules. Such a force does not exist on the world stage right now and, by all accounts, is not expected. This means that the future world will be much more flexible, to the dismay of those who seek simple solutions and expect only a bright future.

Second, because even if something resembling a new balance of power were to emerge, it could not be the result of a single meeting. A comparison to the high-level meetings of the leaders of the USSR, the U.S., and Great Britain during World War II is unfortunately not very apt here. This is because those meetings were preceded by the bloodiest battle in human history.

Fortunately, the current situation is not like that. Therefore, an increasingly likely high-level meeting between Russia and the U.S. is the beginning of a long journey, not the end of the turmoil humanity is currently going through. But it has a fundamental meaning for all of us because it continues a global policy where only two states still possess vast stockpiles of such a terrible weapon.

Is there any more important business for the leaders of Russia and the U.S. than a direct conversation with each other - the one other party who is also invincible?