What happened?
On 16 June, Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin met in Geneva, Switzerland. In the post-summit press conference, Putin said: "The meeting was actually very efficient... It was aimed at achieving results and one of them was pushing back the frontiers of trust." Biden's remarks followed. He said: "The bottom line is I told President Putin that we need to have some basic rules of the road that we can all abide by."

On the same day, the US-Russia Presidential Joint Statement on Strategic Stability was issued. It said: "The recent extension of the New START Treaty exemplifies our commitment to nuclear arms control. Today, we reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." It also said: "Consistent with these goals, the United States and Russia will embark together on an integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue in the near future that will be deliberate and robust. Through this Dialogue, we seek to lay the groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures."

What is the background?
First, the 'return of diplomacy'. The summit was held during one of the lowest points of US-Russia relations. Both sides consciously downplayed expectations, as there were severe differences on crucial issues between the two countries. The Crimean annexation, Ukraine crisis, cyber-attacks and internal human rights violations dominated the headlines before the summit. As a result, the summit had a limited focus on stopping the downward spiral and preferably improving the bilateral relations. It witnessed modest progress with the two leaders stating clear areas of disagreement: explaining their red lines, rules of engagement and areas of weakness. 

Second, the issues discussed. Concrete agreements include a new round of nuclear talks and the return of ambassadors to their posts. A joint statement on nuclear proliferation and a renewed bilateral strategic stability dialogue is definitely a positive takeaway. There was more than a hint of détente, despite persisting tensions regarding cyber warfare and human rights. Biden asserted cyber-attacks on US' critical infrastructure structures were off-limits. Biden also warned Putin against militarily resolving the Ukraine and Belarus disputes while cautioning that killing Navalny would lead to devastating consequences. Putin responded that the stance on Navalny would remain unchanged and backed Belarusian President Lukashenko. 

Third, a constructive approach. The tone of the dialogue, the leaders said, remained unthreatening yet constructive. Biden's approach was evidently different from his predecessor, Donald Trump. The Biden-Putin dynamic combined mutual respect and mutual scepticism rather than friendliness, which characterized the Trump-Putin meeting. Biden and Putin, in essence, tried to dwell more on the positives than the negatives. However, Putin's press statements saw him exercising whataboutisms on the BLM movement and the Capitol insurrection when questioned on the Russian human rights violations. Biden's visible frustration on questions regarding the basis of his trust on Putin 

What does it mean?
For Biden, Russia is a distraction that needs to be addressed, but China is a larger challenge. He is forging an alliance against China, a trend seen throughout his European trip. Biden's emphasis on stable relations provides a renewed opportunity for the US-Russia bilateralism.

Second, Biden's statement – 'proof of the pudding is in the eating' implies that it would take months before considering the summit a success. The ambassadors' return is a welcome outcome and will help further negotiations on the table.