Subscribe
After more than two years of interruption of direct contacts between Paris and Moscow, the recent two-hour telephone conversation between French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin represents a significant step in the context of international diplomacy. This event, as long-awaited as it was unexpected, is part of a framework of profound political, military and rhetorical hostility, where every dialogue initiative takes on a symbolic and strategic meaning. Although the positions remain profoundly divergent, the opening of a direct channel of communication between two key players in the international system suggests a potential paradigm shift, at least on the formal level of multilateral relations. This gesture, although lacking immediate results, indicates a willingness to engage in dialogue that could open future negotiating spaces, even in the absence of a shared vision of the ongoing conflict. The conversation touched on several international dossiers – from the war in Ukraine to the Iranian nuclear program and relations between Russia and the West – without, however, producing concrete results. Nonetheless, the initiative takes on an important symbolic value, especially in light of Russia’s growing international isolation and internal pressure on Macron, suspended between the need to support Kiev and the attempt to preserve an autonomous diplomatic line in Europe.
THE GEOPOLITICAL CONTEXT: PROLONGED WAR AND HYBRID WAR
The meeting took place at an extremely delicate moment in the Ukrainian conflict. Russian forces continue to make progress on the ground, particularly in the Lugansk area, declared completely occupied by the pro-Russian authorities. Ukrainian military operations, despite symbolic strikes such as the drone attack on the Izhevsk military plant, are suffering setbacks, also due to growing uncertainty about Western military support. This war is not only conventional: it is also a hybrid war made of propaganda, cyber-attacks, sabotage and nuclear threats. It is against this background that the Macron–Putin meeting took place, a rare example of direct dialogue in a context of widespread hostility and mutual accusations. The conflict has become a paradigm of clash between opposing worldviews: on the one hand, the liberal-democratic Western bloc; on the other, authoritarian Russia, which claims a multipolar international order that recognizes its centrality. Added to this ideological opposition is a global strategic dimension, with new emerging actors and fluid alliances that further complicate the possibility of finding a shared and lasting solution. In the meantime, the war continues to claim victims and devastate territories. The siege of Sumy by around 50,000 Russian soldiers, the suspension by the Pentagon of the delivery of some weapons to Kiev for logistical reasons, and Ukrainian operations against Russian military infrastructure demonstrate that we are still far from a stable equilibrium. The growing Russian military pressure, combined with the erosion of Ukrainian defensive capacity and the uncertainties of Western support, risks changing the strategic balance. The risk is not only the continuation of the war, but its transformation into a frozen conflict, with devastating consequences for European security.
PUTIN’S POSITIONS: SECURITY RHETORIC AND VICTIM NARRATIVE
During the phone call, Vladimir Putin reiterated the narrative that has guided the Kremlin’s rhetoric for years. According to the Russian president, the conflict in Ukraine is a direct consequence of Western policy, guilty of having ignored Russia’s strategic interests, favoured the birth of what Moscow considers an anti-Russian stronghold in Kiev, and tolerated discrimination against the Russian-speaking population. This is a consolidated position, which places the responsibility for the conflict on the West and denies the idea of Russian aggression. In this vision, Russian military operations are considered a defensive and necessary response. Putin insisted on the need for a global solution that takes into account the reality on the ground, a clear reference to the de facto annexation of Ukrainian territories and the desire to consolidate the territorial gains obtained. This approach makes any dialogue extremely difficult: for Moscow, any negotiation must start from the legitimization of its actions; for the West and Kiev, however, respect for Ukrainian territorial integrity is an essential precondition.
MACRON’S REQUESTS: TRUCE, SOVEREIGNTY AND DIPLOMATIC INITIATIVE
The French president maintained a position consistent with the European line, reiterating France’s unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, Macron also put forward a concrete proposal: to declare a truce and open a negotiation phase to reach a lasting solution to the conflict. This proposal reflects France’s attempt to reconcile its role as a reliable ally within NATO and the EU with that of an autonomous interlocutor at the international level. Macron has always sought to promote a more European approach to the crisis, capable of affirming the Union’s leadership on its continent beyond US positions. The diplomatic initiative also extended to Kiev: immediately after the phone call with Putin, Macron contacted Zelensky to inform him of the contents of the conversation and to reiterate the coordination between France and Ukraine. Sources from the Elysée reported by the major international media have, in fact, confirmed that the two leaders will remain in contact in view of the upcoming diplomatic deadlines.
THE IRANIAN DOSSIER: DIFFERENCES ALSO ON THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM
Another topic addressed during the phone call was the Iranian nuclear program, increasingly at the center of international concerns. Putin recalled the shared responsibilities of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, including France and Russia, to ensure that Tehran respects its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Macron insisted on the need for Iran to allow the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resume their work without delay. Even in this case, however, no concrete agreement was reached. Positions remain distant, especially considering Moscow’s ambiguous role in supporting Tehran, particularly in the context of military and technological cooperation.
THE POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PHONE CALL
Despite the lack of tangible results, the phone call between Macron and Putin represents an important moment in European diplomacy. It is not a turning point, but rather a signal: even in moments of maximum tension, direct dialogue remains possible. Macron’s choice to resume contact with the Kremlin leader can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, as a gesture of political responsibility aimed at exploring every way to contain the escalation. On the other, as a tactical move to reaffirm France’s leading role on the international scene, at a time when Germany appears undecided and the United States is increasingly focused on internal and extra-European challenges. The fact remains that, as long as Moscow continues to consider the conflict as the result of a Western conspiracy and is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of Ukrainian demands, any attempt at negotiation risks running aground before it even begins.
A PEACE THAT IS DISTANT, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE
The phone call between Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin did not produce any concrete results, but it showed that there is still room, albeit minimal, for diplomacy. France, while respecting the European and transatlantic line, is trying to carve out an autonomous role as a facilitator of dialogue in a context in which war seems to have become normalized in its brutality. The positions remain irreconcilable: Moscow wants recognition of the status quo, Paris – like the entire EU – defends Ukrainian sovereignty. However, in the absence of diplomatic initiatives, there is only one alternative: the escalation of the conflict, with unpredictable consequences. The most important lesson of the phone call is perhaps precisely that diplomacy is still possible, but political resolve, strategic vision and above all strong multilateral pressure are needed to bring the parties back to the negotiating table. Otherwise, the war in Ukraine risks becoming a permanent wound in the heart of Europe.