From Anton Gerashchenko (Threads)
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy has written an open letter to Putin. From the perspective of psychological impact, the letter’s content is excellent, and the timing couldn't be better.
Bravo!
During the first two days of the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, everyone was talking about the black smoke over St. Petersburg caused by Ukrainian drone strikes. Today, everyone will be talking about the letter. And they will be asking Putin about it.
Ukraine has brought the war onto Russian territory and closer to the Russian elites. Ukraine then made a public offer of peace. The next move belongs to Putin. And although we can already guess what the answer will be, there remains a tiny possibility that Russia will surprise us all.
But I want to draw attention to something else - how perfectly this letter coincided with the report by the Russian fascists from Tsargrad on Russia's future scenarios.
Just compare these two visions.
The Tsargrad report is an attempt to turn failure into strategy. Russia failed to achieve a quick victory, failed to break Ukraine, failed to fully seize Donbas, and failed to divide the West. But instead of recognizing this as defeat, the Russian framework stretches the war across decades. If there is no victory today, it is moved into the future. If the front is deadlocked, it is called a "long historical struggle."
He promised that Russia would endure. But Russia is paying an ever higher price for the war - in losses, sanctions, strikes on its own territory, dependence on China, and military assistance from North Korea. The letter shifts the war from the language of imperial greatness to the language of cost. And that cost is rising.
President Zelenskyy's strongest move is personalization. He does not speak to "Russia" as a single whole.
He separates Putin from Russia, Russia from the war, and the war from any genuine cause. At the center remains one man - Putin - and his personal choice.
This is important because the regime is built on the formula "Putin is Russia." The letter shatters that formula. In effect, it tells Russians and the Russian elites: this is not your historical destiny, this is his war. And you are the ones paying for it.
That is why the letter is addressed not only to Putin.
In reality, it is unlikely to have convinced Putin. For Putin, compromise looks like weakness, and weakness in such a system is dangerous. But the letter was not written as a plea.
It was written for other audiences: for the West - to show that Ukraine is offering a way out; for the Russian elites - to show that Putin has become dangerous to them; for ordinary Russians - to link the war to prices, shortages, mobilization, and drones; and for Ukrainians - to demonstrate that Ukraine speaks from a position of strength, not fear.
It is also important that President Zelenskyy is not offering Putin a way to "save face."
A dignified exit for Putin is nearly impossible, because his entire legitimacy is tied to the war. Therefore, the letter is not an invitation to a comfortable peace. It is a public presentation of the bill.
This is the letter’s main strength. It does not try to please Putin. Instead, it places him in the position of a man who can no longer explain why he continues the war.
If he agrees to a meeting, Ukraine appears to be the side that forced him to talk.
If he refuses, he looks like a ruler who fears peace because peace is more dangerous to him than war.
That is precisely why Putin is dangerous.
And that is why attention should be focused not on loud statements, but on three things: whether the Kremlin will begin to equate Ukraine’s strikes even more strongly with a threat to Russian strategic deterrence; whether divisions between "Putin" and "Russia" will begin to emerge within the Russian elites; and whether Moscow will lower the nuclear threshold in its public rhetoric.
End
Temas de relações internacionais, de política externa e de diplomacia brasileira, com ênfase em políticas econômicas, viagens, livros e cultura em geral. Um quilombo de resistência intelectual em defesa da racionalidade, da inteligência e das liberdades democráticas. Ver também minha página: www.pralmeida.net (em construção).
quarta-feira, 10 de junho de 2026
Zelensky letter to Putin - Anton Gerashchenko (Threads)
Assinar:
Postar comentários (Atom)
Postagem em destaque
O triângulo improvável; o provocador, o organizador e Madame IA, a sabidona
O triângulo improvável; o provocador, o organizador e Madame IA, a sabidona No comando do espetáculo, ADL organiza o show, Madame IA fornece...
-
Minha entrevista desta sexta-feira 25/02/2022, sobre a dramática situação da Ucrânia no canal +BrasilNews. 1437. “ Entrevista sobre a Ucrân...
-
Personagens Bíblicos / História do Profeta Samuel: Quem foi Samuel na Bíblia? https://estiloadoracao.com/historia-do-profeta-samuel/ Histó...
-
Carreira Diplomática: respondendo a um questionário Paulo Roberto de Almeida ( www.pralmeida.org ) Respostas a questões colocadas por gradua...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
Opinião: Relações Brasil–EUA: decifra-me ou devoro-te A questão crítica em jogo para o País, neste momento, não é eleitoral, mas geopolít...
-
Autobiografia de um fora-da-lei, 3: do nascimento a tempos incertos Paulo Roberto de Almeida Revista Será?, ano xiv...
-
Afinal, no blog Diplomatizzando, quem comanda e induz a Madame IA: o PRA ou o ADL? Justifique/Explique. Airton Dirceu Lemmertz No blog ...
-
Em 19 de fevereiro de 1810, pouco mais de duzentos anos, portanto, os plenipotenciarios portugueses (D. Rodrigo de Souza Coutinho, conde de ...
-
Madame IA examina a evolução do blog Diplomatizzando a pedido de Airton Dirceu Lemmertz Paulo Roberto de Almeida, diplomata, professor...
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário