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.
