Machiavelli writes to Vladimir Putin about Ukraine

 To: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, Kremlin, Moscow

From: Niccolò Machiavelli, Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence

Date: 21 January 2026

Subject: On the Necessity of Outcome and the Perils of Protraction

Sir,

I observe your current enterprise from the cold detachment that only history and the study of human nature can provide. You have embarked upon a course that I once described as the most dangerous for any Prince: the attempt to alter a state by force without the means to secure it swiftly.

Permit me to offer a few observations on the verità effettuale—the effective truth—of your situation.

On the Mismanagement of Cruelty

In my writings, I argued that injuries should be done all at once, so that being felt less, they offend less. 

You, sir, have committed the strategic sin of a "slow cruelty." By allowing this conflict to endure since 2022, you have not inspired the "salutary fear" that secures a conquest; instead, you have cultivated a "persistent hatred" that fuels an inexhaustible resistance. 

A Prince may be feared, but he must avoid being hated, for the hatred of a people is a fortress that no artillery can breach.

On the Danger of Auxiliaries and the Union of Rivals

You have achieved what few thought possible: you have given your enemies a reason for Virtù. By threatening the safety of the European states, you have forced them to abandon their habitual indecision. 

They are now seeking their own "arms"—as Victor Ângelo and others suggest—to no longer depend on the "auxiliary forces" of Washington. You have inadvertently acted as the architect of your rival’s unity. A wise Prince seeks to keep his neighbors divided; you have forged them into a hammer.

On Fortune and the People

You have relied heavily on the Fortuna of winter, energy, and political shifts in the West. But Fortune is a woman, and if you wish to master her, you must conquer her by force and audacity, not by waiting for her to change her mind. 

You assumed the people of the Ukraine would be "spectators" to their own subjugation. You forgot that a people who have tasted even a shadow of liberty will never rest until they regain it. Their memory of freedom is longer than your memory of empire.

The Recommendation of the Fox

Sir, the lion alone cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox alone cannot defend himself from wolves. 

You are currently trapped. If victory is not rapid and decisive, as I have always maintained, the Prince must find a way to "withdraw with dignity" or "reframe the outcome" as a triumph before the state’s treasury and the people's patience are entirely consumed.

Sun Tzu, a man of the East whom I have come to respect in this realm of shades, rightly notes that no nation benefits from prolonged war. 

If you cannot be a Lion that destroys, you must be the Fox that negotiates a peace that looks like a victory. To continue as you are is not strength; it is a lack of Cervello—of brains.

In the end, history does not judge the "justice" of your cause, but the "stability" of your result. At present, you are producing only ruin.

I remain, your cold and watchful servant,

Niccolò Machiavelli

A brief comment about the new US National Security Strategy and the shared interests with Europe

 An Incomplete Reading of the New US Security Strategy

Victor Ângelo

The elites currently in control of federal power in Washington have a mistaken view of Europe. The document they have just published on the National Security Strategy (NSS) criticises most European leaders in an unacceptable and unfounded manner. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that a strong and united Europe is, among other things, a fundamental commercial and financial partner for the wellbeing and stability of both sides.

From a commercial perspective, trade with Europe in goods and services far exceeds any other bilateral relationship the US has. It focuses on technologically advanced products and sectors, which are vital for both economies and have a huge impact on their respective employment rates. Moreover, cross-investments between the two sides, made by European companies in American subsidiaries and vice versa, known as Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), contribute to a deep transatlantic economic integration. European companies are increasingly investing in various sectors of the American economy, with European figures accounting for almost half of all foreign investment in the United States. Imagine what would happen if part of that amount were diverted by Europe to other economies. In principle, I do not foresee this happening, despite the profoundly distorted, even absurd, assessment that the new strategy makes of European policy and Washington’s adoption of a whole series of other obstacles.

From a financial perspective, a significant portion of US federal debt is financed by capital markets in the EU and the United Kingdom. The American administration lives beyond its means, like many others. It constantly issues notes and government bonds to keep civil and military institutions running. The major difference compared to other states is that US debt securities are mostly acquired by foreign central banks and investment funds. They are considered an essential part of the sovereign reserves of the vast majority of states.

Japan, first and by a clear margin, and China, afterwards, are, as individual countries, the main holders of US Treasury bonds. China is closely followed by the United Kingdom. But the British portfolio, added to that of the EU, far exceeds the sum of the holdings of Japan and China.

Now imagine that the EU, by decision of the European Central Bank, naturally backed by the central banks of the eurozone, slightly reduced the purchase of new US securities and simultaneously placed a small portion of those it currently holds on the market, in order to diversify its currency reserves and strengthen the euro’s position as a global reference currency. The EU could buy more Swiss francs, British pounds, Australian dollars, currencies from Gulf countries, and Japanese yen. Such an initiative, carried out quite gradually, could not be presented as an act of hostility. It would be announced as a prudent measure to diversify risk and an essential step towards European financial autonomy. Nor should it be mentioned as a reaction to what was written in the NSS, but simply as a decision to adapt European reserves to new geopolitical realities. And also, as a process to increase the euro’s relevance on the international stage. The euro is the world’s second most important reserve currency, but its role falls short of the Union’s economic weight.

All this should be considered in light of the assertion of European interests, following the expression that is now part of everyday political life in the US: America first. By following that philosophy in Europe, each partner would look after its own advantages, but always within a complementary political framework. Europe must continue to see the US as an ally, even when it insists on the need to rethink its strategic autonomy and defend its system of values.

Regardless of what was written in the NSS, frequent conversations with President Donald Trump should be regarded as essential. I do not know whether Trump has read the new document produced by his collaborators or others. In any case, his policy is very much his own, entirely personal.

What was written above about the complementarity between American and European interests should be repeated as often as possible to the leader of the White House. The real enemy of both, especially in Europe, the North Atlantic, and the Arctic, is the regime of Vladimir Putin. That is the message, regardless of the opinion one may have of Trump. If Putin were to destroy or seize Ukraine, he would soon move on to the next phase, the devastation of other European states. Trump needs to understand that, if that were to happen, the negative impact on his own country would be enormous. The history of this brand-new era began with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It cannot end with the suffocation of our values or the rupture of the alliance between Europe and the US.

Putin as a War Criminal

 The arguments justifying calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal stem from a combination of his alleged command responsibility as the head of the state and the International Criminal Court's (ICC) formal indictment for specific crimes related to the war in Ukraine.

The case for calling him a war criminal is divided into three main categories under international law:

---

1. The Crime of Aggression

The primary argument against Vladimir Putin is for initiating the Crime of Aggression—the "supreme international crime"—by launching a full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

• This act violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which requires member states to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

• While the ICC currently faces jurisdictional issues prosecuting the Crime of Aggression against Russia's leadership (as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute), many nations and international legal experts recognize the invasion itself as the foundational criminal act.

---

2. International Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest Warrant

On March 17, 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, holding him allegedly responsible for two specific war crimes committed in Ukraine. This warrant establishes a formal legal basis for the charge.

The warrant alleges responsibility for the following:

• Unlawful Deportation of Population (Children): The mass removal of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine.

• Unlawful Transfer of Population (Children): The transfer of these children to the Russian Federation.

Justification for Individual Responsibility

The ICC warrant states there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for these acts for two reasons:

1. Direct Involvement/Joint Commission: He allegedly committed the acts directly, jointly with others, and/or through others.

2. Failure to Exercise Proper Control (Command Responsibility): He allegedly failed to exercise proper control over the civilian and military subordinates who committed or allowed the commission of the crimes while under his effective authority.

---

3. Broader War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

Human rights organizations (like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and international investigative bodies have documented a litany of additional crimes allegedly committed by Russian forces and leadership that fall under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Putin is implicated through his role as Commander-in-Chief.

These accusations include:

• Directing Attacks Against Civilian Objects: The widespread and systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure, which are protected under the laws of war.

• Indiscriminate Attacks: The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects (such as indiscriminate shelling and missile strikes) in densely populated civilian areas, causing excessive incidental harm.

• Torture and Sexual Violence: Reports of widespread torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian prisoners of war in occupied territories (e.g., Bucha, Izium).

• Forced Detention and Filtration: The mass detention and abusive screening, often called "filtration," of Ukrainian civilians, sometimes followed by forced transfer to Russia.

These documented actions—the systemic nature of which indicates a policy rather than isolated incidents—provide the factual evidence used to argue for Putin's ultimate responsibility.