By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to Chancellor Scholz’s recent phone call with Vladimir Putin, Polish President Andrzej Duda voiced strong disapproval, deeming the conversation a mistake and questioning its coordination with allies. Duda criticized the negotiation with the aggressor while Russia continues its brutal assault on Ukraine. The Polish president highlighted the problematic nature of a major European leader engaging in dialogue with Putin. Zelenskyy similarly expressed concern, referring to the call as a “Pandora’s box.”
Read the original article here
Calling Vladimir Putin is a mistake, according to the Polish perspective. This isn’t simply a matter of diplomatic protocol; it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Putin’s mentality. He doesn’t respond to reasoned dialogue or attempts at appeasement. Instead, he interprets such actions as weakness, inviting further aggression. The belief is that Putin, and those around him, operate with a mentality that only understands and respects strength, defined not by economic power or political influence, but by a demonstrated capacity and willingness to employ violence. Attempts at peaceful negotiation are viewed as invitations for further concessions.
Negotiating with an aggressor, particularly one who has shown a complete disregard for international norms and the sovereignty of other nations, is seen as fundamentally flawed. The argument isn’t about refusing all communication, but about the nature of the communication and its likely outcome. A conversation that doesn’t involve clear and credible threats of forceful response will only embolden Putin and likely lead to further escalations.
The notion of building a wall and letting Russia “fall” behind it is equally misguided. This approach ignores the reality that Putin’s aggression is not solely focused on Ukraine but represents a wider ambition. A purely defensive strategy without a robust counteroffensive capability is viewed as inadequate. Furthermore, providing limited aid, such as money and ammunition, is considered insufficient. The scale of the conflict demands significantly greater support to even maintain a stalemate. The sheer population disparity between Russia and Ukraine, coupled with Russia’s ability to replenish its forces, necessitates substantially increased assistance to prevent Ukraine from being overwhelmed.
The delays in supplying critical weaponry, such as long-range missiles and fighter jets, further fuel this critique. The perceived slowness in providing necessary equipment is viewed as a dangerous inaction that allows Russia to consolidate its position and further enhance its defensive capabilities. This inaction isn’t simply a matter of logistical delays; it’s seen as a critical failure of strategic planning and a missed opportunity to cripple the Russian war effort at a crucial juncture. The argument is that Ukraine should be empowered to strike key military targets within Russia, proactively disrupting the war effort rather than passively waiting for further Russian advancements.
Concerns are raised not just about the Polish perspective, but about the actions of other world leaders. The reported calls from other global leaders to Putin are interpreted as further evidence of this misguided approach. These communications, lacking the backing of credible threats, are perceived as further emboldening the Russian leader. The lack of strong, unified action from European nations is viewed as astonishing and potentially dangerous. Any attempt at diplomacy that doesn’t include the resolute threat of force is seen as simply playing into Putin’s hands, allowing him to exploit division and sow discord among the nations opposing him.
The central argument against calling Putin boils down to a fundamental difference in approach. It isn’t about rejecting all forms of communication. It’s about the crucial need for a demonstration of strength and resolve. Open communication channels are essential for handling critical issues such as civilian evacuations, prisoner exchanges, and humanitarian aid coordination. However, the argument is that engaging with Putin without a significant demonstration of military strength merely provides a platform for him to legitimize his actions, spread propaganda and exploit any perceived weakness. The belief is that such negotiations, without a credible show of force, only serve to bolster Putin’s confidence and empower his aggressive actions. The need for a unified front, backed by tangible and forceful action, is paramount. A strategy focused on simple diplomacy is seen as a dangerous naiveté. Only when the potential costs of aggression far outweigh any perceived gains will Putin likely be motivated to seek a genuine resolution.