Comments on my letter to President Vladimir Putin

 Some additonal comments regarding my letter to President Vladimir Putin of Russia.

---

Analysis of the Diplomatic Approach

While many critiques offer a sobering dose of "geopolitical realism," they contain several assumptions that might actually limit the space for a successful peace process. Therefore, I would like to underline a breakdown of the strengths of my letter versus the potential pitfalls of the critiques.

1. The Necessity of the UN Charter (Countering the "Kosovo Precedent")

• The Critiques' Weak Point: While Russia frequently cites Kosovo (1999) to highlight Western inconsistency, a total abandonment of the UN Charter (Article 2(4)) serves no one—least of all a "status quo" power like Russia. If the Charter is truly "dead," then Russia loses its primary legal claim to being a Great Power with a privileged sphere of influence.

• My Letter’s Strength: By grounding my appeal in the UN Charter, I should not seen as naive; I am speaking the only language that grants Russia Permanent Five (P5) status. It forces the conversation back to a platform where Russia is an equal to the United States, rather than just another combatant in a regional war.

2. The UNSC as a Strategic Instrument, Not Just a Guarantor

• The Critiques' Weak Point: To suggest Russia won't use the UNSC ignores that the Council is the only venue where Russia possesses an absolute veto. Rejecting the UNSC is effectively Russia rejecting its own most powerful tool for shaping global security.

• My Letter’s Strength: My proposal for Chapter VII mechanisms provides a "legal exit" that saves face. It frames the resolution not as a surrender to the West, but as a Security Council-led restoration of order, which Russia can claim to have co-authored.

3. The "Victors' Peace" vs. Legal Reintegration

• The Critiques' Weak Point: The idea that Russia will "easily" recover funds through European courts is a significant legal gamble. Sovereign immunity is being aggressively reinterpreted in the West. Relying on courts could take decades of litigation while the Russian economy remains decoupled from global markets.

• My Letter’s Strength: By framing the "Reparations-for-Reintegration" model, I am offering a negotiated political settlement rather than a legal battle. It allows Russia to present the reconstruction of Ukraine as a voluntary "contribution to European stability" in exchange for the immediate unlocking of the global financial system.

4. The NATO-Russia Founding Act as a Realistic Off-Ramp

• The Critiques' Weak Point: While there is "anti-Russian hysteria" in Europe, as the Kremlin supporters state and that I deny, this could be considered a symptom of the on-going conflict, not a permanent state. A vacuum of security is what fuels this hysteria.

• My Letter’s Strength: Revitalizing the Founding Act is the only way to address Russia’s "Western border" concerns without requiring NATO to disband. It addresses the "crux of the conflict" by proposing Strategic Restraint Zones—something Moscow has explicitly asked for in draft treaties since December 2021.

---

Synthesis of Strong Points

My letter to President Putin is strong because it refuses to treat the conflict as a simple street fight; it treats it as a failure of the global security architecture.

Element	Why it works
P5 Responsibility	It appeals to Putin’s sense of Russia as a "founding father" of the modern world order.
Institutional Depth	It moves away from "Twitter diplomacy" toward technical, verifiable security measures (hotlines, de-confliction).
Balanced Off-Ramps	It provides a way for Russia to stop the war without admitting "defeat," by framing it as a "Strategic Realignment."

---

Acknowledging the "Humanitarian" Gap

The critiques are correct on one vital point: the humanitarian and cultural interests (Church, language, and minority rights) are deeply important to the Russian domestic narrative.

EU and Russia: sanctions and cooperation, the two sides of the coin

I have just finished my opinion piece of this week for Visão, a well-read general news magazine that is published every Thursday in Lisbon. This time the theme had to be about the relations between the EU and Russia, in the aftermath of the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines plane.

My points are that we have to combine much tougher and better targetted economic sanctions against key Russian enterprises, including Rosneft, making sure they cannot access the European financial markets, with a continuous invitation for political dialogue between Europe and Russia. In the end, both blocs need each other. Russia, sooner or later, will require EU capital, technology and markets to develop its Far East. And Europe has a lot to gain by participating in the economic development of its big neighbour.

However the long term view cannot ignore the realities of today. And the key message here is that Russia has to fully implement the Helsinki Act of 1975 about peace and cooperation in Europe and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. 

Diplomacy as part of a wider package

The agreement reached today in Geneva regarding Ukraine´s crisis is encouraging. We will see if it is implemented. But the fact that the parties, including Russia and the US, could agree on a way forward reminds us that we should keep talking, when there is a conflict, we should not cut off the bridges. That does not mean we should only try diplomacy. Actually diplomacy works better when it is combined with a full range of other measures, such as smart sanctions, military posture and deterrence, unity within the allies, and a clear political position. 

Cool down, gentlemen!

The analysis available this evening does recommend a cooling down of the rhetoric. The messages have been pretty well received in Moscow, they got the picture, which is of clear condemnation, and I think that should be enough for the time being. It is important to be perceived as firm, true. That´s now understood in the Kremlin. But it is also necessary to avoid an escalation of words. Many conflicts have started because the wrong words have been said and misunderstood. As we live in dangerous times, it is important to avoid too many words, too many inflammatory statements or declarations that might create anxiety, confusion and destabilisation of the economic setup, which is very fragile. 

The rule of the Kremlin

I am not sure the Kremlin realises the damaging impact of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's farcical trial on Western European views of present-day Russia. The fact of the matter is that there is little trust left on rule of law in Russia.

It is the rule of Putin that matters, this is how the European citizen sees the situation. And many think that investing in Russia is too hazardous, be it about investing money or political trust.

I have written in the recent past some optimistic pieces about Russia. I am one of those who believes in deepening the engagement. But today's incomprehensible court decision is a major hurdle.