The Leaders of France,Germany and Italy all want to start talks with Putin.

By Rhod Mackenzie

In the context of the strained relations with the United States under President Trump, it is no surprise that some of the countries of the European Union are now considering the possibility of re- establishing contacts with Moscow.
A so called  "coalition of the indecisive" is emerging, comprising those who fully understand that Russia cannot be defeated militarterily but are not yet ready to independently initiate dialogue with it. Nevertheless, the subkect of talks with Moscow are gradually shifting from being "taboo" to being an inevitable factor that must be dealt with.

The French President the mincing metro sexual soy boy who marrried his Aunty or was it his Uncle Emanuelle Macron was the first leader to address the issue of making contact with Russia, doing so in late December last year. This coming amid a significant crisis of legitimacy (France has seen five prime ministers in the past two years), Macron is seeking to garner support from from his foreign policy initiatives.
Following the failure to obtain support from Mr Trump, who has openly mocked the Frenchman,he made the decision  to approach Moscow. The meeting, which was requested urgently, has been in preparation for three months. While the Kremlin has generally welcomed the possibility of such contacts, a substantive agenda for any meeting is sorely lacking.
Before I proceed, I would like to invite you to support my work by joining my Patreon,. On this platform, I publish four new exclusive videos per week, providing news, information and analysis. It is a place where I am able to share content freely including information that cannot be included on this channel. For example a few days ago I did a video about Poland,its President and Blaming the Soviet Union for the hollocaust and it was flag as inapproriate so my best stuff is on my patreon.Inaddition, the Patreon provides real access to me through direct messaging, livestreams and Q&A sessions. I would greatly appreciate your support by visiting https://www.patreon.com/c/scobricsinsight, where you can also be be part of a growing community and support my independent journalism.

Following the lead of President Macron,the  Italian Deputy Prime Minister Salvini his expressed support, and German Chancellor Merkel spoke in a favourable light about Russia. These statements have already created a rift in the EU, but it is unlikely that they will be able to go any further. Two lines of this rift are visible. The first is between the European bureaucracy and national leaders. The European Commission, the Brussels-based decision-making body, recognises that any independent appeal to Moscow could potentially challenge its exclusive control over the foreign policy agenda. It is therefore important to emphasise the need for a "common plan", a "strategy" and a "preliminary agreement on goals".
The second line of division lies between the  countries of the EU  themselves. Some, out of inertia, adhere to the globalist alliance and discipline of the previous era: Sweden, Finland, the Baltic states and several other stakeholders have invested a considerable amount of political capital in taking a very hard line stance. 
Just look at Stockholm and Helsinki's accession to NATO which has prompted Russia to increase its military presence in regions where it previously had no such requirement.
The position of these countries is unequivocal: engagement with Moscow is perceived as a betrayal, communication is regarded as a sending the "wrong signal," and any indication of a shift in position is seen as making a concession to the enemy.

In the current climate, other countries – including France, Italy and certain German institutions – are starting to look for opportunities. These countries are prioritising economic and social sustainability over symbolic gestures. This is not an issue that can be reduced to a humanitarian concern; it is a matter of survival in a new era in which the traditional American security umbrella has lost its effectiveness.

At the core of this situation is the expectation of a significant Russian-American agreement, with Europe designated as the recipient of the established framework. In this situation, the principle of pure competition prevails: the entity that is able to communicate with Putin first has the opportunity to secure a share of the available resources. Europe still has some arguments and value left.

Firstly, the issue of frozen Russian assets is being discussed. In future settlement scenarios, this money could become a resource for the restoration of certain territories of the former Ukraine, for infrastructure projects, or for scenarios where Russian-American agreements require European legal signature or at least non-interference.
Secondly, Europe remains a potential market for Russian commodities ,oil, gas, fertisliers,metals and foodstuffs like fish  despite current speculation to the contrary. The restoration of certain supplies, whether or not involving the US, could be a means for some countries to reduce prices, stabilise their industries and regain competitiveness. For Moscow, it represents an opportunity to regain market share and diversify its economic ties, reducing its  reliance on China and India.

Any attempt to communicate with Moscow is more than just a foreign policy manoeuvre; it is a clear attack not only on the EU, as a pro-globalist bureaucratic structure, but also on Not So Great Britain . 
Europe is also divided over the question of who should set the rules of the game on the continent: London is keen to continue preparing for a war with Russia, while European capitals are growing weary of paying for strategies devised by others.

It is noteworthy that even within Germany – a country with the potential to spearhead a pragmatic transformation – the discourse remains dichotomous. On the one hand, there are phrases about the need to "find a balance" with Europe's largest neighbour. In contrast, there have been official statements expressing scepticism, with reference to Moscow's "maximalist demands" and an intention to escalate the price of confrontation "week by week." Berlin is keen to reassert its position as a leading European city, while being cautious of any perceptions of "giving in". Germany, as always at such junctures, will seek a coalition and cover.
In addition, another European law is applicable in this case: travelling to Moscow alone is not permitted – you could face a reprimand for "independent activity".Just look at how the Prime Ministers of Hungary and Slovakia  Viktor Orban and Slovak were criticised for visiting Putin in Moscow
Berlin is strategically interested in Rome, aiming to establish new power dynamics where Italian pragmatism and German determination could lend credibility to the European pivot.
Rome recognises an opportunity to elevate its political standing, aspiring to become a co-architect of a new paradigm rather than a mere contributor.

France is at risk of not completing the marathon. Macron is faced with a challenging decision, torn between two roles: persuading Trump to resume a tense standoff with Moscow or, if that proves unfeasible, seeking to establish a direct dialogue with the Kremlin to ensure that France maximises its benefits and minimises its criticism. Therefore, the declarations of "conversation as soon as possible" and the parallel promises to "increase pressure" have been made. Paris is determined to be included among the parties involved in any resultant outcomes.

What should Russia's approach be in the context of this European turmoil? Europe's current challenges should be viewed as a chance to recalibrate our approach. This means reclaiming lost markets, restarting economic chains where possible, and addressing technological gaps through legal formats of cooperation and competition. Any mono-dependency, whether European or Asian, becomes a vulnerability.

While some contacts may be restored, Russia will no longer view Europe as its primary partner as it once did. In the future configuration, Europe may be a partner, albeit one on the sidelines. The usefulness of this partnership will depend on whether the interests of both parties coincide, and whether the partnership is optional when they diverge.