** Vladimir Putin: declaration of peace and war propaganda – a complex duality **
In recent months, the posture of Vladimir Putin on the conflict in Ukraine has aroused strong questions. On the one hand, the Russian president said he wanted peace, but on the other, his speeches and his propaganda seem to support a continuous war effort. This phenomenon raises deep questions about the nature of political communication in Russia and the role of history in the shaping of contemporary perceptions.
### A pacifist facade?
The recent talks between Russians and Ukrainians in Istanbul were interpreted by some as a sign of the desire to negotiate a lasting ceasefire. Putin, during discussions, even sent positive signals, especially towards influential political figures like Donald Trump, who ardently wishes a peace agreement. This approach could be perceived as an attempt to loosen the diplomatic vice and to show a certain flexibility on the international scene. However, this approach seems to face striking contradictions, especially when you observe internal discourse.
### A speech from another time
In parallel, Putin’s statements continue to feed a very militarized story, designating Ukrainians as “Nazis” and accusing allied countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, of prolonging the conflict to the detriment of Ukraine. This language, which evokes echoes of the Stalinist period, seems to galvanize internal support and strengthen national unity in the face of an external enemy. This phenomenon of glorification of historical memory and mobilization of symbols of the past is not new in war contexts. However, it can question its relevance and effectiveness in the resolution of a contemporary conflict.
### The role of propaganda
Propaganda is not limited to the enunciation of lies; It also mobilizes historical accounts to shape national identity. Under the guidance of advisers like Vladimir Medinsky, the rewriting of history to justify government actions is a strategic practice. This method creates a narrative framework where Russia appears as a victim, thus strengthening the patriotic feeling while consolidating the power in place.
It is useful to wonder how this duality between the displayed desire for peace and bellicist actions is perceived, both inside and outside the country. How does the Russian people interpret these contradictory messages? Is there a frustration in the face of this manipulation of national feelings? The answers to these questions could open the way to new reflections on the possible evolution of international relations and internal dynamics in Russia.
### Towards a peaceful resolution?
To advance towards a sustainable resolution, it would be essential that regional and international actors recognize these complex dynamics. Promoting a dialogue that values peace requires tackling the roots of this propaganda and the perceptions that feed it. This also implies a sincere commitment in the search for solutions which benefit not only to the political elites, but especially to the civilian populations often taken hostage by the decisions of leaders.
Multi-level approaches, which include the voices of Russian and Ukrainian civil society, could offer a platform for more authentic discussions. Peace can only be sustainable if it is anchored in mutual understanding and reconciliation, which requires a collective effort to go beyond the historical narrations which divide.
### Conclusion
The dichotomy between the proclaimed peace and the war fueled by propaganda in Vladimir Putin is indicative of a larger challenge, both for Russia and for Europe. By sailing in these troubled waters, it is crucial not to lose sight of the ultimate goal: to build bridges towards peaceful coexistence rather than fuel cleavages that have only lasted too much. Opening true dialogue paths can ultimately offer an alternative to the cycle of persistent violence and distrust.