Zelensky letter to Putin - Anton Gerashchenko (Threads)

 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

A letter from Zelensky to Putin - Anton Gerashchenko

Zelensky writes to Putin proposing an end to his war of aggression against his country, Ukraine

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

Um dia que vai ficar na História - Paulo Roberto de Almeida, Anton Gerashchenko

 Um dia que vai ficar na História 

O evento geopoliticamente MAIS IMPORTANTE neste quinto mês de 2026 foi o fato de Zelensky ter concedido autorização a um Putin atemorizado para que este pudesse realizar uma parada pífia no dia 9 de maio, a data politicamente mais relevante no calendário mistificador da “Grande Guerra Patriótica”, que só assumiu essa qualificação porque o idiota do Hitler impediu que o tirano Stalin continuasse como seu aliado na destruição das democracias ocidentais da Europa.

Essa data precisa ser marcada, porque ela representa o começo do fim do tirano de Moscou. PRA

Leiam esta matéria de Anton Gerashchenko (X, 11/05/2026)

“In my opinion, yesterday a turning point in the war took place.

Perhaps we still do not fully grasp the significance of what happened.

For the first time, Putin publicly showed his weakness and inability to independently protect his capital, his parade, and himself from our strikes. Because of this, a frightened Putin was forced to publicly humiliate himself and ask Trump, as a mediator, to help stop a strike on Moscow.

De facto, Putin asked Trump to protect him from the Ukrainians.

I consider President Zelenskyy’s order a brilliant informational slap in the face and an additional public humiliation.

It is obvious that before and during the parade, Putin was physically afraid - he felt vulnerable and threatened.

Putin publicly appeared weak and humiliated, and in Russia’s "prison-style" political culture, such things are not forgiven.

A weak "tsar," mocked by everyone, cannot remain a tsar in Russia.

These are very, very hard times for Ukraine. However, Ukraine is strong, resilient, and continues the fight.

Slava Ukraini!”

A Rússia é uma violadora serial da lei internacional, e distorce e mente deliberadamente sobre fatos e procedimentos - Anton Gerashchenko

Sobre o avião derrubado em Belgorod com "prisioneiros de guerra" à bordo.

Anton Gerashchenko

@Gerashchenko_en

Il-76 crash in Belgorod region: violation of the laws and rules of war. Assessment of the situation. Russia officially stated that "Ukrainian prisoners of war who were allegedly on board, allegedly died". As of today, we know two facts: 1. The plane was shot down; 2. A prisoner exchange was planned but did not take place. The plane went down on Russian territory - outside of Ukraine's control. International experts must determine whether the facts are true. Ukraine insists on an international investigation - President Zelenskyy. The Security Service of Ukraine has opened a criminal investigation of the crash of the Il-76 (SSU confirmed this in a comment to Radio Liberty). There are currently three hypothetical versions of what the plane could have been carrying: there were no Ukrainian prisoners of war on board; there were prisoners of war on board; in addition to prisoners of war, there was military cargo on board. All three options mean a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. The first one assumes that the aggressor organized a provocation and was preparing for it. This is a gross violation of the Third Geneva Convention by the Russian Federation and a war crime committed by Russians: repressions, i.e. killing prisoners of war in another place and in another way and taking prisoners of war as hostages. The second option is also a violation of the Third Geneva Convention by the Russian Federation - a violation of the laws and customs of war. The Convention requires that the ICRC and the Protecting Power, i.e. an official intermediary, be involved in the exchange of prisoners of war and monitoring of their condition. The Russian Federation sabotages the appointment of the Protecting Power and does not allow the ICRC to participate in the negotiation and exchange processes. According to Article 23 of the Geneva Convention, "no prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations". The third option includes such war crimes of the Russian Federation as taking hostages in the form of a "human shield" on an airplane to "cover" the transportation of cargo (could be missiles for the shelling of Kharkiv. Earlier, there were several reports of S-300 missiles being delivered by Il-76 aircraft in Belgorod region). Any hypothetical scenario, even the saddest one, described above, does not imply international responsibility of Ukraine and the Ukrainian military. By commenting on the situation with the plane, Russian propaganda is trying to gain international support. If it succeeds, it could mean that the tactic of suddenly killing Ukrainian prisoners of war could be used again. We remember how Russia and its propaganda acted when commenting on the massacre of Ukrainian prisoners of war in Olenivka and the explosion of the Kakhovka HPP. This is the same handwriting of a terrorist country. "Russia consents to an international investigation into the crash of the Il-76 with Ukrainian prisoners of war near Belgorod on condition that it is seen as an investigation into the "criminal actions of the Kyiv regime" - presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said this morning. In fact, this means rejecting an international expertise. And that speaks volumes.

Sobre o significado histórico do atual momento - Joe Biden, Paulo Roberto de Almeida, Anton Gerashchenko

De manhã bem cedo, ao ler um resumo do mais recente pronunciamento público do presidente Joe Biden, eu postei no FB a seguinte observação: 

"Seria justo equiparar a guerra de agressão de Putin contra a Ucrânia aos atentados terroristas do Hamas contra Israel? Biden tem razão em colocar ambos fatos no mesmo plano?

A História estaria mesmo em um de seus momentos decisivos?

"Biden argued that the world was at yet another “inflection point in history,” with the decisions made by global leaders now likely “to determine the future for decades to come.”

Biden por acaso tem razão?

Ucrânia e Gaza na balança?

Qual o significado de um e outro evento?

A retaliação de Israel contra a população civil seria justificável como resposta no plano moral?

Considerações para "filósofos" da História, ou até mesmo historiadores curiosos..."

(Segunda-feira, 23 de outubro de 2023, 7:50hs: 1 h )

Mais tarde, leio na versão estendida do X, a atual feição do antigo Twitter, os seguintes argumentos para reflexão continuada sobre nosso atual momento decisivo na História:

" Anton Gerashchenko

@Gerashchenko_en

Putin has set off a global chain reaction of violence and war. The world is beginning to realize that it will not be possible to "wait it out" until better times, because it is the waiting and prolongation of wars that delays peace and "better times". Moreover, the situation of waiting and unpunished evil worsens the situation around the world. In Ukraine, we have realized a long time ago that we will not return to the state of "before February 24, 2022". And this is not just about Ukraine. It's about the whole world. Now the world is beginning to realize that global, tectonic changes are taking place. A return to the pre-war status quo is impossible. The future of the world in the coming millennia is being decided right now. However, there is no clear understanding of what comes next. If not "as before," then how? What should be the model of the future system? What values will be fundamental? What and who will provide guarantees? We see that emotions prevail now, boosted by social media, which in recent years have become the main source of information and a call to action. Emotions also prevail now because a new cycle of electoral elections in Europe and the United States is approaching, and voters are used to talking to them not in the language of facts but in the language of emotions. Russia is more monolithic here, because Putin has been in power for decades and does not care about domestic voters. He controls the media, social networks, and not only in Russia. Information wars are waged through anonymous accounts that are trusted by readers who are not interested in facts, reputation, or expertise. This is maximized by propaganda, which allocates huge amounts of money to manipulate and distort reality. Manipulated, distorted, unverified, anonymous and irresponsibly disseminated information can be more dangerous than nuclear weapons. We don't go to doctors on an emotional and impulsive basis. We carefully choose the best expert. A professional who has a real long-term reputation. Unfortunately, this is not the case with information. Therefore, the basis of our decisions should be a critical mind. Critical doubt. Common sense. Information hygiene. These times are a test of modern democracy. It is a test of people's maturity and values. It is a test of opinion leaders and politicians. How will this crisis end? Will autocracies and tyrannies win? What will the world look like in the future? Whether we want it or not, it depends on us, among other things. It depends on our actions and our choices. Right here and right now.

9:51 AM · Oct 22, 2023

·

406.6K"