Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, appearing as a guest on wPolsce.pl, argued that the media coverage of Olaf Scholz’s discussions with Vladimir Putin merely echoed a reality already visible to observers: Germany appeared ready to extend a working relationship with the Kremlin regime, prioritizing economic gains for Germany above other considerations. The comment underscored a perception that Berlin sought to preserve influence or access, even if it meant sustaining ties with Moscow amid a fraught security environment.
There was a prompt reminder about Scholz’s communications with Putin, as the public record showed that these conversations had occurred and that the Elysée Palace issued statements following them. The remark noted that officials in Berlin and Paris remained in ongoing contact, suggesting a pattern of engagement with Russia that persisted despite any policy disagreements. In the speaker’s view, this pattern conveyed a sense that German authorities preferred to maintain dialogue with Moscow, a stance that, in the current climate of war, could be interpreted as a troubling signal rather than a sign of strong unity within Europe. The characterization of interactions as taking place in a seemingly cordial tone was described as suspicious by the commentator, who urged readers to question the optics of such diplomacy during a period of conflict.
In the discussion, the question was raised: does Scholz back Putin? The reply suggested that German behavior leaned toward doing as little as possible, and as slowly as possible, in terms of concrete support. The reading was that Berlin preferred to announce potential measures without materializing them, a pattern that could be seen as reducing the impact on Russia while keeping channels open. The speaker asserted that this approach risked undermining a unified European policy, pointing instead to a spectrum of positions among frontline nations and a softer stance from Berlin and Paris that still anticipated continued cooperation with Moscow.
The MEP contended that Germany’s approach reflected a continuation of its eastern policy, with the wartime disruption merely delaying progress toward a broader alliance. The thrust of the argument was that the policy was not accidental but deliberate, aiming at closer ties with Russia and a Europe spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok while reducing American influence. Scholz’s stance, according to the narrator, had long included favorable considerations toward Putin; today, that support appeared reduced only because external pressures from other European countries and the United States intensified. The underlying claim was that if not for these pressures, the orientation toward Moscow would likely have remained steadfast, with ongoing commercial engagements persisting as a central objective.
The commentary framed the situation as a deliberate political strategy rather than mere naiveté. It described a long-standing effort to bring Europe closer to Russia, coupled with a strategic shift away from the United States. The speaker asserted that Scholz’s public posture did not show a dramatic shift, but rather an evolution shaped by external pressure and regional dynamics. The overall assessment presented a war-driven context in which a slower, more measured policy toward Russia could be interpreted as a calculated move to preserve leverage, while still facing the reality of economic and political constraints in Europe.
From this perspective, the disagreements among European capitals appeared to be less about principle and more about the practicalities of balancing security with economic necessity. The discussion suggested that the German approach, while not openly adversarial, was marked by a readiness to delay decisive steps and to keep options open in relation to Russia. This stance, the speaker argued, could complicate efforts to sustain a unified front, particularly when member states faced divergent interests and external pressures from allies and partners across the Atlantic and within the region.
In summary, the conversation presented a portrait of German policy as cautious and incremental, with a focus on economic continuity and long-term engagement with Russia. The presenter emphasized that such a trajectory might reflect a broader strategic calculation aimed at preserving influence, while navigating the wider consequences for European security and the ability to coordinate a coherent response to Moscow’s actions. The assessment concluded that the overall direction of German policy under Scholz was closely tied to a broader vision of engagement with Russia that many observers felt would be tested again as global dynamics continue to shift. (Citation: wPolityce)