Table of Contents
- 1 Diplomacy in the Ukraine war: “Anyone who started a war cannot sit at the negotiating table”
- 2 Estonian ex-diplomat: “The Kremlin was always concerned with restoring the Russian Empire”
- 3 Russia’s Rural Areas “Stuck in 1945” – Brainwashing Putin “Very, Very Successfully”
- 4 Navalny extends the list of Putin’s victims – an overview
- 5 What are the potential risks and benefits of engaging in dialog with the Russian people while simultaneously condemning Putin’s actions, and how can these two seemingly conflicting approaches be reconciled?
PressSplit
Does diplomacy bring peace in the Ukraine war? Special requirements apply to Russia, says an ex-ambassador. The country must “understand”.
Brussels – Diplomacy is now widely called for as a solution to the Ukraine war. And if experts are to be believed, work on peace has been going on in the background for a long time – even before Olaf Scholz’s controversial phone call with Vladimir Putin.
Marina Kaljurand met the Russian ruler personally, albeit a few years ago. The Estonian MEP was Foreign Minister, but also her country’s ambassador – to the USA and Russia. In an interview with IPPEN.MEDIA emphasizes the experienced diplomat: She believes in the power of conversation. In the case of Russia, however, special requirements apply. Kaljurand thinks uneasily of her brief meeting with Putin.
Diplomacy in the Ukraine war: “Anyone who started a war cannot sit at the negotiating table”
“Can you imagine if someone had negotiated with Hitler after World War II? The situation is the same today,” says the 62-year-old: “Someone who started a war cannot sit at the negotiating table when a sustainable peace is being negotiated.” Peace is only for both sides – Ukraine and Russia – acceptable conditions possible. But the current Kremlin regime cannot sit at the table.
Marina Kaljurand in the European Parliament. (Archive image) © IMAGO/Dwi Anoraganingrum
And the Ukraine war cannot end with a forced handshake between Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin. Technically this is conceivable. “But then we will live in a Europe in which we have to be prepared for attacks on neighboring countries at any time,” warns Kaljurand. Such a signal goes far beyond Europe. “That would have an impact on the entire world order.” Putin, in turn, would not “look in the mirror and say, I’m sorry, I was wrong. He won’t do that. Never.”
Estonian ex-diplomat: “The Kremlin was always concerned with restoring the Russian Empire”
The Estonian emphasizes: Even during her term as Russia’s ambassador from 2005 to 2008, Estonia had no illusions about Russia. The ideology always remained the same: “The Kremlin was always concerned the restoration of the Russian EmpireThis was shown by cyber attacks on Estonia in 2007, the war in Georgia in 2008, and the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Only Russia’s means have become more drastic. Latvian ex-Foreign Minister Sandra Kalniete had a similar conversation IPPEN.MEDIA expressed.
Vladimir Putin in 2007 – back then he was campaigning for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi. © Imago/Golovanov+Kivrin
Therefore, the EU must continue its support for Ukraine – and must “understand” the people of Russia – “just as the Germans finally had to understand what the Nazi regime did after the Second World War”. However, in their opinion, the Russian population is “brainwashed”.
The former ambassador described an incident from her time in office: After a dispute over a war memorial for the Red Army in Tallinn, school classes and student groups showed up in front of the embassy – some with clear instructions from their teacher, others with a “list of enemies” that also included addresses foreign embassies included. Their teacher told the first graders: “We will make drawings, then we will give the pictures to the Nazi ambassador and ask her to stop killing our fathers, grandfathers and brothers.”
Russia’s Rural Areas “Stuck in 1945” – Brainwashing Putin “Very, Very Successfully”
In rural parts of Russia, however, her “life seemed stuck in 1945.” “There were still babushkas running across the streets carrying water and the only thing they said was: We don’t want war.” The West had long given itself over to false hopes about change through partnership. Now he has to arm himself against Russian brainwashing attempts; Russia is “very, very successful”. We need to teach in schools to pay attention to sources and who finances the reporting, warns Kaljurand. “These are basic steps, but we don’t follow them.”
View photo series
However, your contact with Putin at the traditional greeting of newly appointed ambassadors was brief. “The other ambassadors present and I were instructed not to speak to the president, only to say ‘Hello’ and ‘Here you go,'” Kaljurand recalls. In the following speech, Putin was sharply critical of the Republic of Moldova. “I looked at my colleague and just hoped he wasn’t having a heart attack,” says the ex-diplomat. “You come with the best intentions – and are greeted in a way that makes you want to leave immediately. That was my impression.” (fn)
What are the potential risks and benefits of engaging in dialog with the Russian people while simultaneously condemning Putin’s actions, and how can these two seemingly conflicting approaches be reconciled?
This article discusses the perspectives on the Russia-Ukraine war, focusing on the role of Putin and the future implications of the conflict. Here are some open-ended questions for discussion, grouped by theme:
**Theme 1: The Possibility of a Negotiated Peace**
* **The article mentions that a forced handshake between Zelensky and Putin wouldn’t guarantee lasting peace. Why might such a peace be fragile, and what are the potential dangers?**
* **Could there be any conditions under which a negotiated peace would be sustainable and ultimately beneficial for all parties involved? What compromises might be necessary?**
* **What international guarantees could help ensure a lasting peace after the war?**
**Theme 2: Russia’s Historical and Ideological Ambitions**
* **The article cites Kaljurand’s claim that the Kremlin has long aimed to restore the Russian Empire. How convincing is this argument, and what evidence supports it?**
* **Do you think Putin’s actions are motivated primarily by ideology, by a desire for territorial expansion, or by a combination of factors?**
* **What are the implications for the post-war world if Russia’s goal continues to revolve around restoring past glories?**
**Theme 3: The Role of Propaganda and Brainwashing**
* **Kaljurand states that the Russian population has been heavily “brainwashed” by the government. To what extent do you agree with this assessment?**
* **What are some of the specific tactics used by the Russian government to shape public opinion? How effective have they been in influencing perceptions of the war?**
* **What role can independent media and civil society play in countering the spread of disinformation and propaganda?**
**Theme 4: The Responsibility of Western Nations**
* **What should be the role of the EU in supporting Ukraine and holding Russia accountable?**
* **How can Western governments effectively counteract Russian aggression while avoiding further escalation of the conflict?**
* **What are the potential long-term implications for European security and the global order?**
**Theme 5: Understanding the Russian People and Finding Paths to Dialogue**
* **While condemning Putin’s wartime actions, is it important to find ways to understand the perspectives and grievances of ordinary Russians? Why or why not?**
* **How can dialog and cultural exchange be promoted even during times of conflict?**
* **What role, if any, should forgiveness and reconciliation play in the aftermath of the war?**
By encouraging discussion on these themes, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex issues surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict and its implications for the world.
