Executive Summary
Mid-January 2025 marked a strategic pivot in Kremlin messaging. Moscow launched a calculated dual narrative targeting Europe: offering “mutually beneficial cooperation” to the EU “party of peace” (nations skeptical of supporting Ukraine) while directing threats and derision at the “party of war” (Ukraine supporters strengthening defense).
Putin personally signaled this approach during a January 15 ambassador credentials ceremony, proposing a “return to dialogue” based on “respect for national interests” — code for accepting Russian demands.
Simultaneously, after weeks of anti-American propaganda, the Kremlin abruptly shifted tone toward Washington. Presidential spokesman Peskov emphasized on January 19 that Moscow “highly values the efforts of the Americans” on Ukraine negotiations, contrasting pragmatic dialogue with the U.S. against tensions with Brussels.
Remarkably, Moscow endorsed Trump’s Greenland rhetoric, with Peskov stating Trump would “undoubtedly enter history” for resolving Greenland’s status — despite the expansionist implications contradicting international norms.
Why it matters
Domestic Objectives: The Kremlin exploits persistent Russian public demand for peace (despite continuing the war) by portraying Putin as a peacemaker. This narrative maintains domestic legitimacy while prosecuting an aggressive foreign policy. The message: Putin wants peace, but the West refuses dialogue.
International Strategy: Moscow aims to fracture Western unity on three axes.
First, divide Europe by rewarding “peace party” nations (Hungary, Slovakia) while punishing supporters of Ukraine through economic pressure and threat displays (including references to the Oreshnik missile system).
Second, exploit U.S.–EU tensions over Greenland and tariffs to position Washington and Brussels as adversaries rather than allies.
Third, use the World Economic Forum in Davos to reinforce Russia’s “peacemaker” image while special envoy Kirill Dmitriev negotiates with U.S. representatives.
Kremlin propaganda networks explicitly state the strategic endgame: the “Greenland precedent” could either lead to the collapse of NATO or redefine Article 5 collective security in a way that would make the United States responsible only for North America, leaving Europe to face Russia alone.
Moscow calculates that fracturing transatlantic unity would create optimal conditions for achieving its objectives in Ukraine and could enable further escalation beyond Ukraine without U.S. interference.
Conclusions
Tactical Opportunism: Moscow rapidly adjusts messaging to exploit emerging Western divisions, pivoting from anti-Trump rhetoric to embracing Trump–EU tensions within weeks.
False Equivalence: “Peace rhetoric” functions as propaganda rather than policy. Kremlin demands for “dialogue” mean capitulation to Russian terms, while military pressure on Ukraine — and potentially beyond — is maintained.
Alliance Vulnerability Testing: Russia actively probes NATO cohesion, betting that U.S.–EU friction over Greenland, tariffs, and burden-sharing will paralyze collective defense mechanisms.
Davos as Theater: The WEF provides Moscow a stage to showcase Western disarray while positioning Russia as a rational negotiating partner — despite ongoing aggression.
Strategic Implication: The primary threat lies less in Russia’s military capability than in its ability to exploit Western political divisions to sustain or escalate aggression.