This year's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders' Meeting will be held in San Francisco, USA, from November 12 to 18. According to senior US diplomat Matt Murray, the US State Department has invited all APEC members to attend the meeting, including, of course, Russia, which was previously widely concerned about whether it will be invited by the United States.
In early July, a US official claimed that the United States did not intend to invite Russia to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in San Francisco. In late August, it was even reported that the United States would not issue visas to the Russian delegation, which made the Russian side extremely angry.
In response to rumors that the United States is not ready to invite Russia and that visas will not be issued to the Russian delegation, the Russian Foreign Ministry has responded that the reluctance of the US authorities to see Russia's attitude at the meeting is "regrettable." He also accused the US side of "lack of sincerity" and "opposing the issue of multilateral economic cooperation and politicizing a purely economic forum." Of course, the Russian side also said at that time that it would not give up its efforts to win participation in the meeting.
By November 7, the question of whether Russia would be invited to the APEC meeting suddenly took a turn for the worse. According to TASS news agency, citing senior US diplomat Matt Murray, the organizers will plan to invite all APEC members, including Russia, to the summit "in accordance with the spirit and principles of APEC."
Regardless of the real reason why the United States changed its stance and attitude and suddenly invited the Russian delegation to participate in the APEC summit, for Russia, after all, it is to win back the face of a great power. After all, Russia has been invited to international events such as the APEC meeting in Bangkok after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the G20 summit in Indonesia last year, and the G20 summit in India this year. Therefore, in this sense, being able to be finally invited by the United States can be regarded as Russia's fight for face.
Russia's great power is fighting for face, but Putin is not going. According to a TASS report on the 8th, Russian presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said that Russia will send representatives at an "appropriate level" to attend the informal meeting of APEC leaders in San Francisco, USA. The report also analyzed that Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov, who replaced Putin in the Bangkok summit last year, will still represent Putin at this year's APEC summit in San Francisco.
Although Peskov did not say that Putin would not go to the United States, the subtext is already clear. As for Russia's decision, there are opinions in the field of public opinion that this is another "clever move" by Putin, which is intended to "embarras" the United States, in short, Russia has won again. Of course, there is also an opinion that Putin actually wants to go, but his intuition tells him: he can't go. Because, maybe it is the "Hongmen Banquet", which is intended to "invite the king into the urn".
The reason why Putin wants to go to the United States to participate in the APEC meeting is because he is more symbolic about breaking the blockade and isolation of the West. After all, since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the initiator of the West's economic sanctions and political isolation against Russia is the United States, and the leader is also the United States. Therefore, once it can set foot on the mainland of the United States, it is the United States that is "embarrassed". However, even so, Putin decided not to go, what is the reason?
As you know, since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, especially since the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Putin for "war crimes" in March this year, Putin has rarely stepped out of the country, and only a handful of foreign visits have been made either within the CIS and the Collective Security Organization, or to countries with friendly relations that are not parties to the Rome Statute. I have to say that this Russia-Ukraine conflict has indeed limited Putin's "head of state diplomacy".
Last year's APEC summit in Bangkok and the G20 summit in Bali did not take part in Putin. At that time, the "arrest warrant" of the International Criminal Court was not issued, obviously, for another reason. And this reason is to avoid "embarrassment". Just imagine, if the head of state of a world power is ignored by the majority of countries when attending a meeting, that kind of situation will naturally hurt his "self-esteem". So, I just didn't go.
As for Putin's failure to attend the BRICS summit in South Africa in July this year, it was purely the "arrest warrant" that caused trouble. The reason for this is that South Africa is a party to the Rome Statute. Therefore, in the "spirit of the contract", South Africa must implement the "ruling" of the International Criminal Court. And for the sake of Putin alone, and because of one thing, South Africa withdraws from the Rome Statute, it is "not worth it". Second, it could not be approved by the Supreme Court of South Africa. Therefore, the South African government was in a difficult situation for a while. Based on this, Putin was very knowledgeable and did not attend the meeting in person in the end.
To put it bluntly, Russia really needs "head-of-state diplomacy" to break the strategic deadlock, break through the "blockade line" of the Western camp, and tear the curtain of political isolation between the United States and the West. And if you want to realize this wish, you will undoubtedly get twice the result with half the effort if you go straight to the base camp of the Western bloc, the United States. However, in the face of such a good opportunity, why did Putin give up again?
Some analysts believe that the reason why Putin gave up his "seught" trip to the United States to attend the informal meeting of leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation may be based on three considerations: First, security issues, that is, avoiding extraneous complications. The second is to avoid being "embarrassed". The third is to "embarras" the United States. To put it bluntly, none of these three reasons are actually "reasons", and they do not stand up to logical scrutiny.
The United States, like Russia, is not a party to the Rome Statute and is not bound by ICC rulings. Therefore, it is impossible for the United States to embarrass Putin because of that "arrest warrant". Moreover, the United States knows very well what it means to "arrest" Putin, so it will not be so risky. Based on this, the question of security is not valid, and it does not make logical sense.
As for avoiding the factor of "embarrassment", it is actually not a problem. Because as the saying goes: if you are not embarrassed, then the "embarrassed" person must be someone else. Just imagine, if Putin breaks through this psychological barrier, it may not be himself who will be embarrassed.
Of course, it is even more illogical to say that Putin did not go to the United States to embarrass the United States. Because, since the United States has invited Russia to participate, it means that Putin has already made a plan to decide whether to attend the meeting. To put it bluntly, the United States actually expected that Putin would not go, and would not let Putin go in person.
In fact, when senior US diplomat Matt Murray said that the reason for inviting all APEC members, including Russia, was "in accordance with the spirit and principles of APEC," there was a paragraph after that, that is, "and acting (in accordance with) US regulations and laws." This necessarily includes 'considering sanctions'". The implication is already clear, that is, the United States holds the "power of interpretation", or rather, the "power of control".
For example, if Putin decides to "take a risk" and attend the meeting in person on US soil, it may be the United States that is passive, because it will disappoint Ukraine, and it will also make America's Western allies "dissatisfied" and think that the United States has "betrayed" them. So, what will the United States do? To put it bluntly, the United States will use the reason of "sanctions" to refuse to grant a visa to Putin. In that case, Putin will be really embarrassed. Perhaps it is precisely because of this in mind that Putin has decided not to go to the United States.
Obviously, Putin's decision not to attend the meeting was not to embarrass the United States, but not to jump into the "trap" designed by the United States. Of course, he inevitably has a sense of "bitterness" in his heart, after all, he was once a "star holding the moon" type figure in international social activities, but now he has been reduced to the point where he has to think twice about going abroad. To put it bluntly, it's all caused by this war in Ukraine.