Diplomacy of symbolism and realpolitik: Paris, Moscow, and European security

Written by Zeljko Sajn, for Kosovo Online

The statement by the Kremlin’s spokesperson Dmitry Peskov that Russia, “out of solidarity with the Élysée Palace,” will neither confirm nor deny reports of a possible visit by an adviser to the President of France to Moscow represents more than mere protocolary restraint. Coming at a moment of intensified diplomatic signaling, such a position indicates that communication between Paris and Moscow is being conducted deliberately discreetly, outside the usual media channels.

Particular weight is added to this context by the fact that the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, at his annual press conference on December 19, in response to a question from Belgrade’s Politika, publicly and precisely articulated Moscow’s central position: Russia is ready for peace and dialogue, but exclusively through a political settlement that entails addressing the root causes of the conflict and redefining the European security architecture.

The fact that this message—delivered before more than 1,700 journalists from around the world—was articulated precisely in response to Politika carries additional political and diplomatic weight, as peace was directly conditioned on the removal of underlying causes rather than their temporary management. This message constitutes an indirect yet clearly addressed signal to European capitals seeking a way out of the stalemate, while avoiding taking the first step in formulating an initiative.

It was precisely after this appearance that the first concrete European reaction followed. The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, repeatedly emphasized his readiness for a meeting and for renewing dialogue with Moscow, noting that talks were being conducted “at a technical level” and that diplomatic channels of communication needed to be reopened. This persistence, reiterated in public statements over the following weeks, suggests that Paris did not react impulsively, but rather consciously built a political framework for direct contact at the highest level.

Within this framework, one should view the visit of Macron’s diplomatic adviser Emmanuel Bonne to Moscow on February 3, on the eve of the anniversary of the Yalta Conference. According to L’Express and Bloomberg, Bonne met with Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov to discuss Ukraine and the need for Europe to participate in decision-making on issues affecting the continent’s security. The discretion surrounding the visit, as well as the Kremlin’s refusal to comment on it officially, point to a mutual intention to avoid politicizing the process at an early stage.

The reference to “solidarity with the Élysée Palace” has a precise meaning in diplomatic practice. It usually denotes a tacit understanding between two sides that certain contacts should not be made public until their political scope has been assessed. This is not a sign of distance, but rather the opposite—a signal of mutual respect and readiness to conduct dialogue without media pressure. Experience shows that such wording is used when Moscow accepts its counterpart’s initiative while at the same time seeking to retain control over the pace and form of communication.

Moscow has applied a similar pattern in the past. During periods of intensive dialogue with Germany, contacts between the Kremlin and the office of then-Chancellor Angela Merkel were often conducted discreetly, without public confirmation, in order to preserve room for political maneuvering. A comparable practice was evident in relations with Turkey, where direct channels of communication were maintained outside media attention during moments of heightened tension. In both cases, discretion accompanied recognition of the interlocutor’s political relevance.

The timing of Bonne’s visit further amplifies its symbolism. Yalta, as the place where the post-war order of Europe was agreed in 1945, represents in the political memory of both Moscow and Paris an example of a moment when major conflicts were resolved through political agreement rather than prolonged confrontation. A meeting held on the eve of the Yalta anniversary can therefore be read as a conscious reminder that stability in Europe requires a discussion of the security system as a whole, rather than partial and temporary solutions.

On this historical foundation, General Charles de Gaulle built the concept of French strategic autonomy after the war, insisting that France must have its own voice on matters of war and peace, independent of bloc discipline. Today’s efforts by President Macron to open a direct channel of dialogue with Moscow fit into that same political continuity—not as nostalgia for the past, but as an attempt for France to once again act as an autonomous European actor in shaping the security order.

In light of all this, the Kremlin’s restraint and insistence on “solidarity” do not appear to be a mere diplomatic formula, but rather a confirmation that a channel of communication has been opened and is being built carefully and without public pressure. The key question that remains, however, is whether Europe will have the political will to use this channel for substantive dialogue, or whether it will remain limited to symbolic gestures.

Without a discussion of root causes and without readiness for a political settlement in which domination is excluded and agreement takes precedence, peace in Europe remains little more than a rhetorical formula.