How Russia buys time with fake diplomacy while building 200,000-strong drone forces. The tactical breakdown every leader needs to understand.
Jānis Bērziņš
Aug 22, 2025
A lot has been written about the Trump-Putin meeting with many obvious conclusions. First, it was more spectacle than substance. Second, it was much about internal politics. Third, although Trump did not lose, the real winner was Putin. He was able to present himself as an indispensable world leader for Russia’s internal audience and for the BRICS.
The result of the nearly three hours of discussions was predictable: nothing. No deal to cease the war, no concrete progress toward ending the war, no concessions from Russia. Just repeating the same demands: demilitarization, no-NATO membership, changing the government for a pro-Russia one, keeping Crimea and Donbas. Dugin, the ideologue of Russian fascism, was in ecstasy. He characterized the results as grandiose, stating that “only Alexander III could win all and lose nothing.” Makes sense. Putin is politically isolated, indicted with war crimes, facing several economic problems – including the increasing dependence of the Russian economy on China. He is responsible for the war, for children being kidnapped, for the nonsensical killings as in Bucha.
Then the meeting in Washington with Zelensky and many European leaders plus NATO’s Secretary General last Monday. That gathering could not have been more different in tone and purpose. Rather than a carefully choreographed display of mutual admiration, it was a demonstration of unity and resolve. President Zelensky, flanked by allies from across the Atlantic, spoke not of concessions but of solidarity, security guarantees, and a clear roadmap for Ukraine’s recovery and eventual NATO membership. Each European leader reiterated their pledges of continued military aid, humanitarian assistance, and sanctions enforcement.
Nevertheless, it seems Washington is still being fooled by Russian negotiating tactics. The Russian playbook is as follows:
Strategic Foundation
- Maximum Demands with Zero Flexibility
Asking for everything, including what you’ve never been entitled to. Never being shy while staying completely inflexible about objectives. Using blackmail and pressure against perceived weak points.
- Strategic Endurance and Pressure Psychology
Preparing for the long haul, outlasting opponents through persistence. Using ultimatums and threats to exploit opponent psychology—especially the West’s tendency to compromise too quickly to avoid confrontation.
- Strategic Ambiguity
Maintaining deliberate ambiguity over red lines and deadlines. Opponents never know when escalation or de-escalation might happen, creating constant uncertainty that favors the more patient party.
Initial Engagement Tactics
- Perpetual Meeting Theater
Always willing to meet, talk, and discuss. Shows goodwill and good faith where there are absolutely none. Creates the illusion of engagement while avoiding real commitments.
- Objective Agreement Without Solutions
Agreeing with main objectives, i.e. peace is necessary, stability matters, but without presenting any sensible proposals for reaching them. Pure diversion that wastes time while maintaining the status quo.
Process Control and Manipulation
- Legitimacy Theater and Image Management
Using negotiations as a showcase to legitimize the domestic regime while burnishing international image. Sidestepping real compromises while keeping conflicts and leverage completely intact.
- Narrative Monopolization
Controlling the story through state media and sympathetic international platforms. Framing any stalemate as proof of Western intransigence rather than Russian obstruction.
- Coalition Fragmentation
Fragmenting stakeholders through bilateral side discussions. Drawing individual parties away from the main group, exploiting dissent to sow doubt about unified purpose and resolve.
Pressure Application and False Progress
- Mirage Concessions
Agreeing to incremental measures that look like progress like temporary humanitarian corridors, brief ceasefires, prisoner exchanges. These reversible tokens grab headlines but leave core demands unchanged.
- Never Cede, Always Squeeze
Never giving ground. When offered part of what you initially demanded, don’t agree—squeeze out more. Every partial concession becomes proof that full demands are achievable.
The post-summit news is already a bit discouraging. It does not make sense of talking about security guarantees without boots on the ground. Preferably American boots. At the same time, Lavrov already said that Russia wants a say on the peace guarantees and their implementation exactly as points nine and ten of the playbook. The Russians are also doing everything to convince Trump that they are behaving reasonably, while laying down a series of conditions that Zelensky will refuse to accept, thus making him the unreasonable one. After meeting with Putin in Alaska, Trump was already saying that Zelensky could end the war immediately. Probably, without the presence of the European leaders, the White House would frame Zelensky as being responsible for the war ongoing resulting in a significant strategic victory for Russia as in points six, seven, and eight.
In reality, there is no genuine progress toward any meaningful agreement. This whole process looks more like fake. It seems Putin is not very keen to meet with Zelensky, as hoped by President Trump. The offer to meeting in Moscow is ludicrous. There is a real chance, even if small, that Zelensky could be assassinated. Lavrov insists that any security guarantees for Ukraine must align with the 2022 Istanbul framework, which would effectively give Russia veto power over assistance decisions. He is avoiding outright refusal of meetings but making it clear that summits can only happen once all preconditions and agendas are fully settled to Russian satisfaction. Classic Russian logic: demand terms that lock in your own leverage, then claim you’re ready to negotiate once those terms are already met.
In this sense, it is becoming clear that they do not actually want peace. They are buying time. Although the beginning of the escalation in February 2022 was a strategic disaster, Russia has been able to evolve. And now it is starting to have real strategic advantage. The Alabuga facility is cranking out over 100 Shaheds daily, and China is actively helping Russia scale up mass production of these drone systems. Russia is rapidly building out dedicated Drone Forces that, accordingly to the plans, could result in six-seven regiments and around 15-16 battalions by end of 2025, being integrated directly into motorized rifle and airborne divisions, plus specialized strike units with Shahed-class capabilities.
Within 18 to 24 months, they are projecting drone forces of around 200,000 personnel across more than 200 battalions total. And that is just what we can see on the surface. Technologically, Russia is positioned to leapfrog Ukraine in advanced solutions, particularly electronic warfare systems and integrated counter-UAV capabilities. Add the steady flow of contract soldiers, re-equipment of new divisions in the Leningrad Military District, and tightening domestic control including restricted internet and successful integration of electronic draft systems. The picture becomes clear: Putin does not want to negotiate. He is playing with Trump’s desire to make a deal and his apparent willingness to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The question is whether Europe is ready for what is actually coming. It is not. It understands the risks, but it is too slow to react and implement the plans. That is why European leaders should learn some lessons:
Strategic Autonomy and Assertiveness
The Alaska summit revealed how easily Europe could be sidelined by U.S.-Russia talks. Europe must develop and assert its own strategic interests, not just react to U.S. or Russian moves. Building independent, credible policies (strategic autonomy) is essential to avoid being marginalized. This means increasing agility and making things to happen instead of making empty declarations.
Shifting from Firefighting to Long-Term Policy
European power has often relied on crisis management and debate, rather than decisive, proactive strategy. The lesson here is to shift to “forest management” – devising comprehensive, long-term solutions and frameworks to manage systemic challenges, not just episodic crises.
Balancing Values and Power
The summit showed that geopolitical actors prefer hard power over values when push comes to shove. Europe must ensure its values remain its foundation, but also invest in real capabilities such as military, economic, and diplomatic to make those values count on the global stage and deter aggression.
Unified, Proactive Approach
Fragmentation and endless discussing and strategizing, plus the significant level of red tape, leave Europe vulnerable. Unity is mandatory. Leaders must move quickly beyond reacting to shifting U.S. priorities and focus formulation on pan-European interests, especially security for bordering states like Ukraine, independent of American approval. Trump is fast, Europe is slow. Putin is opportunistic and patient.
Stakeholder Inclusion and Red Lines
Europe must make its role clear in any major negotiations, stating explicit terms for involvement and clear red lines, particularly regarding future security arrangements, reconstruction, and peace deals. Influence is best achieved by combining subtlety and clarity: be ready to negotiate, but demand inclusion and respect for European interests. For that to happen, Europe must be stronger.
Russia’s negotiating theater is not a pathway to peace but a delaying tactic that lets the Kremlin increase capabilities and rewire its economy for a protracted war. Unless the United States stops chasing photo-ops and Europe moves from statements to hard capability and clear red lines, the West will keep trading time for Russian battlefield gains and strategic positives. The window to deny Putin his 200,000-strong drone force and to prevent Ukraine’s fate from deciding Europe’s will not stay open much longer.