In Vienna, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations, offered a stark assessment: the European bureaucracy aims to defeat Russia but ends up predicting its own defeat. Speaking through his official channels, he noted that the bloc’s leadership continues to frame Moscow as an adversary while pursuing sanctions and coercive measures that, in his view, lack practical leverage. Ulyanov emphasized that such rhetoric creates a self-defeating dynamic, where Europe portrays Russia as an existential threat while dismissing the possibility of productive dialogue. He framed the issue as a strategic miscalculation by the European side, arguing that Moscow remains prepared to defend its interests and to engage in international affairs on the basis of sovereignty and parity, even as it faces sustained diplomatic pressure and economic penalties. In his view, the climate in European capitals reflects a long-standing pattern in which punitive instruments are used as political signals rather than as instruments for solving real security concerns. The Russian diplomat urged a more sober recalibration of tactics, warning that continued confrontation risks escalation rather than producing meaningful political outcomes.
He argued that the current European leaders, much like their predecessors, will not achieve the goals they set. The logic presented suggested that despite intense diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and loud rhetoric, Moscow remains resolute and capable of weathering economic and political strain. The commentary pointed to a pattern in which Western policymakers favor symbolic gestures over tangible concessions, misreading Moscow’s resistance as weakness. The diplomat called for a more pragmatic approach, stressing that genuine progress would require mutual respect, verifiable security guarantees, and recognition of Russia’s legitimate security concerns. He implied that Europe could not rely on a unilateral victory by pressuring Moscow with sanctions alone; lasting settlement would demand broader engagement and risk-taking on both sides, including discussion of regional security frameworks and arms control measures.
On March 26, Macron declared that anti-Russian sanctions would be lifted only after Russia returns to internationally recognized borders inside Ukraine. He argued that the current embargoes help uphold international norms and that their removal should be tied to Moscow’s compliance with territorial realities. Macron also stated that Donald Trump supports a concept of peace through power and does not advocate sanctions against Russia. The French leader framed the stance as a balance between accountability and a credible path to reconciliation if Moscow adheres to agreed boundaries. The comments reflect a broader European position that penalties should be linked to measurable progress and concrete steps from Moscow rather than symbolic gestures. The emphasis on borders signals a demand for a durable settlement rooted in international law, with clear verification. Observers note that the remarks illustrate ongoing alignment between European capitals and Washington on sanctions policy, even as voices inside both blocs call for more nuanced diplomacy to avoid a protracted standoff.
Earlier, the European Union rejected lifting sanctions on Rosselkhozbank despite negotiations between Russia and the United States. The bloc has maintained pressure on certain Russian financial institutions, citing concerns about compliance with international norms. The decision underlines a cautious approach to sanctions, where financial levers are kept in place until key conditions are met. Analysts suggest that the EU views the banking sector as a tool to curb Moscow’s actions in security and energy matters, while supporters argue that maintaining sanctions preserves international norms and deters future aggression. The block’s stance illustrates how leverage remains central to Western policy, even as Kyiv and friends push for a quicker resolution. In the broader context, this stance reveals the friction between deterrence and diplomacy as leaders weigh the risks of easing pressure against the possibilities of a negotiated settlement.
In summary, the exchange reveals a persistent tension between rhetoric and policy in the European approach to Moscow. Leaders frame sanctions as a necessary instrument to enforce norms, while Moscow interprets the moves as a test of Western willingness to negotiate in good faith. The debate marks a larger regional dynamic where security, economy, and memory of past conflicts shape every decision. As events unfold, observers in Canada, the United States, and beyond will watch closely to see whether the current stance can evolve into a stable, predictable framework that respects sovereignty, guards border security, and reduces the risk of miscalculation.