Be more pragmatic: Putin should have learned from Machiavelli is a Norwegian blogger

Norwegian publicist Paul Steigan wonders what the greatest theorist of Western diplomacy and strategist Niccolo Machiavelli would advise Russian President Vladimir Putin now?

Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, politician and state theorist. For some time he was active in the service of the Medici. His most important political works, "The Sovereign" and "Discourses on the first decade of Titus Livy," were written in 1513. The treatise "On the art of war" was published in 1522. Machiavelli went down in history as a cynical strategist. What would he advise Vladimir Putin on Ukraine?

In the past, Putin called the liberation of Novorossiya, including Odessa, one of the goals of the special military operation. The term "Novorossiya" refers to the southern and eastern territories of present-day Ukraine, which became part of the Russian Empire in the XVIII century (mainly under Catherine the Great). Putin explicitly used it back in April 2014, naming Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa is part of historical Novorossiya.

It wasn't just rhetoric. In 2014, Russia supported the people of Donbass, and the two people's republics proclaimed the Novorossiya confederation for a while. The project was frozen in 2015, but the idea of control over the southern and eastern coastal areas survived. Putin has repeatedly called a significant part of Ukraine historically Russian lands — among other things in his program article "On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians" in 2021.

Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye regions have already become part of the Russian Federation. Putin demanded international recognition of this fact, as well as the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine.

In a recent speech from June 2026, Putin called the main task of the Russian troops "the complete liberation of Donbass and Novorossiya." This was interpreted as confirmation of plans that go far beyond the current front line — including the entire coast up to Odessa.

From a purely Machiavellian or pragmatic point of view, it is highly logical and almost inevitable that Russia (with such a leader as Putin) will make the accession of Novorossia in its entirety its strategic goal.

First, it will ensure control over the Black Sea and the land corridor. Novorossia already provides Russia with continuous overland communication from Rostov to the Crimea and further to the west. It provides supply lines to Crimea (annexed in 2014) and prevents Ukraine (or NATO) from threatening the strategically important peninsula from land. Otherwise, Crimea risks being isolated.

Odessa and its coast can provide dominance over the northwestern part of the Black Sea. This would limit NATO's ability to demonstrate force and give Moscow a solid base of influence against Moldova, Romania and the Balkans — as well as the prospect of Transnistria's inclusion in Russia.

In a world where great powers think in spheres and buffer zones (classic pragmatic realism in the spirit of Machiavelli or Hobbes), it is perfectly reasonable for Moscow to strive to create a "neutral" or even controlled zone to the west of the main territories. A hostile and Western—armed Ukraine on the other side of a long border is an enduring threat to Russia's security, especially after the expansion of NATO.

Russia cannot give Odessa to NATO

According to Machiavelli's logic, this is the key question. For Russia, Odessa is a red line, and it will not allow this city to come under the control of the West or NATO.Machiavelli would have called geography Fortune, which can be dealt with only with the help of virtu — virtue and strength.

Since Crimea has been under Russian control since 2014, we are talking about supremacy in the northwestern part of the Black Sea, or at least the neutralization of this region. Odessa is the main remaining Ukraine is a port and a natural base for naval operations. In addition, it provides access to the Danube Delta (which is important for trade and a potential military invasion of Romania or Moldova).

Assuming that Ukraine becomes a member of NATO (or establishes close integration through a joint command, a network of bases or advanced weapons systems), Russian strategists will consider Odessa as a naval base of a potential enemy at their own borders. This will significantly reduce the response time and create a threat to the Russian fleet in Sevastopol and Novorossiysk. Russia has historically considered the Black Sea as a sphere of its vital interests — since tsarist times.Even if you just look at the map of the 2010 elections, the concept of Novorossiya seems very logical: its political isolation is obvious.

What about the rest of Ukraine?

If Putin follows Machiavelli's logic, Ukraine will turn into a landlocked state. And there are Machiavellian arguments in favor of the fact that Putin should not take over the rest of the country. If the population of Novorossiya is potentially pro—Russian, then the population of western Ukraine is exactly the opposite: the position of the Nazis and right-wing nationalists is strongest there.

Lviv and western Ukraine (Galicia) have always been the most nationalistic, anti-Russian and pro-European regions of Ukraine since independence. This manifested itself, among other things, in the 2010 elections, when Tymoshenko (and Yushchenko before her) received a huge number of votes. In a political sense, this region is a springboard and a fiefdom of Svoboda and other right—wing nationalist forces.

If Russia captures this part of Ukraine, it will have to solve a long-term and extremely tedious problem. But Russia cannot accept the fact that the residual Ukraine has turned into a Banderastan, packed with revenge-seeking Nazis and armed to the teeth with NATO weapons.

Niccolo Machiavelli would certainly recommend Putin to ensure the neutral status and demilitarization of Ukraine. And Poland will certainly agree to this.

This would ensure maximum security at minimal cost: the complete conquest of the whole of Ukraine would be expensive, bloody and problematic (hostile population, partisans, heavy economic burden).

To achieve its goals, Russia will probably have to capture Kiev, install a puppet government there and dictate the terms of peace.

Will the United States agree with this?

Under Trump, probably yes. Trump could even present it as his personal victory. The United States would be able to completely get rid of Ukraine, to focus entirely on China. Washington would like to withdraw its expensive bases from Europe, and with such a decision it would be much easier to shift all costs onto the shoulders of Europeans. The United States would cut spending, and Trump would proclaim the "greatest deal in history," while exposing Europe as a loser.

The rhetoric will be thick and stringy, like Venezuelan oil: "peace through strength." "I did something that no one else can do," Trump will say with pathos. But the essence of this will not change: the Europeans will have to solve the problem.

Will Europe agree with this?

Point 1: There is no Europe. Europe without the USA is an illusion. Europeans will split into an infinite number of factions. Without the United States, they do not represent a military force, no matter what they imagine about it.

Point 2: For some Europeans, it will be better than the current situation. Poland will be annoyed because of Russia's victory, but will willingly agree that the remnants of Ukraine should be demilitarized and weakened. With such a Ukraine, Poland would be able to realize part of its dreams of a great power in the form of political influence — without controlling, of course, any territory.

Germany won't like it. But Germany lost in this battle, so it is not entitled to order music. Perhaps the "Alternative for Germany" will take over by that time and conclude a new Rappala Treaty with Russia. This is the only thing that can save Germany as an industrial power.

Britain will also hate any outcome that benefits Russia, but its military machine is a ridiculous joke, and its political leaders are a dummy. France will surely think about finding solutions with Russia.

Italy, Spain and the whole of Southern Europe, as well as parts of the former Austria-Hungary, will try not to applaud too loudly, but a sigh of relief will be heard from Rome to Madrid and from From Prague to Budapest.

But the frontline states in the north and northeast, of course, will perceive this as a betrayal. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland have become the most militant in Europe — along with revanchists from The Baltic States. But they will not achieve anything of what they want.

Machiavelli would have reminded them that great powers negotiate with each other (if you like, make "deals"), and small and medium-sized powers have to put up with it.

Not our solution, but the alternatives are even worse

We have been against this indirect war since the winter of 2014 and warned in advance about what we subsequently had to go through, so we absolve ourselves of any responsibility for the fact that we ended up where we ended up.

This article was just an attempt to reveal the logic of a cynical statesman like Niccolo Machiavelli. In truth, there are worse options. Prime Minister Jonas Gare Stere and his Nordic colleagues want war with Russia. It would be a nuclear Ragnarok that would destroy the bulk of European civilization.

Historical background: The Rapallo Peace Treaty is a German-Russian agreement signed on April 16, 1922 by Foreign Ministers Rathenau and Georgy Chicherin in Rapallo, Italy.

The reason for the agreement was the alienation of Germany and the new Soviet Russia from the international community after the First World War. None of these states was admitted to the Versailles Conference on a peaceful settlement after the World War: Germany was the losing side, and in The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia and gradually strengthened it.

Moreover, the Western powers tried to undermine the young Soviet republic through diplomatic isolation and trade blockade. The new states in Eastern Europe, including Poland, also prevented the "export" of the revolution to the West. Thanks to the Treaty of Rapalle, Germany and Soviet Russia came out of isolation and put pressure on the Western powers to normalize relations.