Observation from a Telegram channel associated with Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, raised comments about Germany’s stance on Vladimir Putin. The tone suggested that Berlin’s choice not to designate Putin as president was interpreted as a display of “shameful weakness.” Medvedev’s post framed the move as a strategic signal, implying that Germany is attempting to recalibrate its posture toward Moscow in the absence of a formal recognition of Putin as leader. He questioned who Putin represents for Germany today and what the price of any future negotiations between Moscow and Berlin might be, signaling concern over shifts in diplomatic language and the potential implications for bilateral relations.
Medvedev characterized the German position as an extension of a broader concession, arguing that the decision to avoid naming Putin in official channels reflects a perceived vulnerability. He suggested that the German leadership might be pursuing a statement that would be easier to justify domestically, even if it complicates the interaction with Russia. The remark implies a belief that such a stance could undermine the clarity of Moscow’s expectations in diplomatic exchanges and create ambiguity about the Russian president’s role in relations with Germany.
In parallel, Medvedev drew attention to what he described as a provocative claim by “sausage makers,” a colloquial reference that he used to describe influential German figures. He asserted that there are voices within Germany who prefer negotiations with Putin despite not recognizing his official title in the current context. This observation was presented as evidence of a broader debate inside German political circles about how to engage with Russia and what terms might govern any future dialogue, even if Putin’s formal status remains a contested issue.
According to Medvedev, this development signals a shift in the framing of leadership and authority within German political discourse. He argued that such statements could be interpreted as an avoidance of direct acknowledgment of Russia’s electoral processes and outcomes. The implication is that Germany might be trying to maintain channels of contact while steering clear of explicit recognition of Moscow’s political leadership, a stance that Medvedev viewed as a potential obstacle to straightforward diplomacy.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova was cited as commenting on the matter, noting a perceived reluctance within the German Foreign Ministry to indicate Putin’s position in official documents. Zakharova characterized this hesitation as a symptom of an acute phobia about Putin’s status, suggesting that the official posture in Berlin reflects deeper unease about Moscow’s political reality. The dialogue highlighted a divide between domestic German considerations and the expectations of Moscow for transparent diplomatic messaging.
The German Foreign Ministry’s decision on March 18 not to mention the post of President of the Russian Federation was described as part of a broader trend observed by Russian officials. This move was interpreted as a deliberate choice to avoid tying any official designation to a particular individual, thereby preserving flexibility in how Russia is presented in official communications. The language used in Berlin’s statements was seen as a signal of how far German policy might diverge from Moscow’s definitions of leadership and legitimacy.
Earlier remarks attributed to Medvedev touched on perceptions of Western political actors’ memory and the shifting attention away from certain figures. He suggested that Western politicians are retreating from visibility and agency, a claim that underscores a broader narrative about the changing balance of influence in transatlantic relations. The statements collectively illustrate a moment of tension where language, recognition, and formal titles intersect with ongoing strategic calculations about security, diplomacy, and the management of reputations on both sides of the European-Russian divide.