The visit of the leaders of France and Germany to Kiev, while at the same time engaging with Putin, is unlikely to produce a decisive breakthrough. This is especially true given Moscow’s multifaceted strategy toward the broader world, a strategy that European decision-makers often struggle to fully grasp due to its layered and sometimes opaque aims.
From a Russian perspective, politics often appears to operate on several levels simultaneously, with moves that can seem contradictory yet are part of a longer, deliberate plan. This approach has roots in a long-standing tradition, dating back to Soviet practice, where the theoretical goal of a classless state mask a reality of centralized power and imperial ambitions pursued through a policy that sought influence across borders.
Present-day dynamics in Putin’s orbit unfold through at least three narratives that conceal real, potentially harmful actions.
The first narrative targets the right of Ukrainians to preserve their national identity. It is framed in terms of creating a notion of a historical region called Malorossia, referencing groups like the Bandera faction and portraying residents as inferior. Democratic societies around the world have rejected these claims, and international pressure has grown, though the outcomes have varied by country and circumstance.
The second narrative, while couched in familiar terms of diplomatic courtesy in Berlin and Paris, emphasizes dominance through spheres of influence. The argument positions the Dniester and the Bug as zones of consideration, and diplomats in Paris and Berlin have observed echoes of past European power dynamics. While some view the current conflict as a regrettable but manageable clash, others see a more persistent attempt to curtail the sovereignty of smaller states. The French president and the German chancellor have repeatedly voiced expectations of a strong role for Europe in coordinating responses to Moscow, even as they engage with Moscow in formats that resemble earlier diplomatic bargains—note the historical associations with figures like Talleyrand and Metternich in discussing balance of power and influence.
At this stage of Russian policy, the genius of Hollande or Scholz might appear to be diplomacy itself—seeking partnership with the Kremlin even as they support measures to bolster Ukraine. Yet the underlying argument argues for keeping smaller nations within a defined orbit while maintaining a dialogue that could be read as permissive or strategic. Beneath these talks lies another, parallel agenda: to undermine the order that has allowed Western democracies to prosper in recent decades. This is the third perspective, a more cynical game that aims to shake the foundations of Western unity and sovereignty.
It is argued that Moscow tries to erode coordinated responses by leveraging covert influence operations—financing sympathetic groups, creating economic disruptions that could drive migration and social strain, and offering incentives to elites in exchange for favorable positions. Some of these strategies are hidden in plain sight, wrapped in political theater and the appearance of normal diplomatic engagement. The aim is to erode trust in political institutions and to foster a sense of inevitability about Russia’s rising role on the global stage.
Such tactics are intended to complicate decision-making in Western capitals, where long, drawn-out negotiations can create windows for influence and delay. The result, supporters of a hard line argue, is a risk of repeated misreads and overconfidence among Western leaders who have seen Russia for centuries as a formidable actor. The potential cost is measured in lives, livelihoods, and the stability of communities that rely on predictable, shared rules of international conduct.
In this context, the West faces a challenge: to respond with unity and clarity, resisting the temptation to accept promises that rest on shaky foundations. History shows how oscillating policies—from appeasement to forceful deterrence—can fail when the underlying assumptions shift too slowly or are never fully confronted. The current era demands not only strategic patience but also a readiness to align political, economic, and security instruments in a coherent approach that defends democratic norms while offering legitimate paths for diplomacy where feasible.
For readers in Canada, the United States, and beyond, the situation underscores the importance of accurate information, careful risk assessment, and a steady commitment to international law and human rights. The consequences of misreading Moscow’s moves would be borne by ordinary people—people who deserve safety, dignity, and a future free from the fear of abrupt upheavals triggered by external interference or covert manipulation. The analysis here suggests that Western governments would do well to balance cautious engagement with clear, principled positions that discourage aggression while preserving space for legitimate dialogue when it can advance peace and stability.
Source: wPolityce