The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), held from June 3 to June 6, 2026, and intended to showcase Vladimir Putin’s international stature, opened and closed against a backdrop of smoke from Ukrainian drone attacks. On the morning of June 3, the forum’s opening day, a major fire broke out at the St. Petersburg Oil Terminal. On June 6, the day the forum concluded, the attacks were repeated. But what did Vladimir Putin’s conduct at the forum actually reveal?
The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum: A Symbol of Losing Touch with Reality
On the first and last days of the forum, St. Petersburg and the surrounding region were targeted by more than 200 drones, some of which struck military facilities belonging to Russia’s Ministry of Defense. Notably, there were no attacks on June 5, the day Putin spoke at the forum. Instead, 185 Ukrainian defenders returned home from Russian captivity that day. Apparently, that was the price of ensuring calm for the Russian leader.
Although the forum’s agenda was economic in nature, discussions during panel sessions focused far more on politics and ideology. The shadow of war loomed behind every speaker.
Naturally, the centerpiece of the forum was Vladimir Putin’s speech. However, anyone expecting to hear anything new from him was predictably disappointed. Once again, Russia’s leader displayed all the symptoms of excessive self-confidence: a person who considers himself an expert on every issue, yet makes mistakes at every turn and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge them.
Moreover, the number of mistakes Putin makes seems to increase with each public appearance. He confuses figures, facts, words, and assessments. This is hardly surprising: someone who lives in a world of personal illusions gradually loses touch with reality, accepting only information that aligns with preconceived beliefs. This is often described as a manifestation of the Dunning–Kruger effect, in which individuals overestimate their own competence despite clear evidence to the contrary.
At the same time, a lack of self-reflection prevents Putin from recognizing how absurd he appears in his attempts to project the image of a great leader of a great nation. His lengthy speech consisted largely of familiar clichés intended to demonstrate that “everything is going according to plan.” Even when partially acknowledging problems, the Russian president reframed them as indicators of success.
For example, Putin stated: “…we are seeing a slowdown in gross domestic product growth and some other things, but all of this is being done consciously to improve the health of the Russian economy… The economy is developing, everything is stable, even the domestic market is growing, and the population’s well-being is improving.”
In the same vein, he argued that European sanctions harm the European Union rather than Russia; that European elites are provoking chaos and attempting to draw more and more countries into it; that the future belongs to the BRICS bloc; and that Europe’s economy is destined to decline.
Putin also continues to rely on the Soviet-era practice of evaluating countries primarily by the absolute size of their GDP. In reality, a state’s effectiveness is more meaningfully measured by GDP per capita. By that metric, BRICS leader China ranks 86th in the world, while India ranks 137th. For the past half-century, a country’s position in the global economy has depended less on the volume of its industrial output and more on the standard of living enjoyed by its population. But Putin probably does not know that – or does not want to know it. Otherwise, his own picture of the world would begin to fall apart.
Putin Talks About Ukraine but Could Not Even Finish Reading Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Letter
As for the war in Ukraine, Putin offered nothing new on that subject either. He repeated the familiar clichés of Russian propaganda about a coup d’état in Kyiv and the right of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population to self-determination and reunification with Russia. According to Putin, it was this right that Russia was defending when it launched its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
However, there has been a certain revision of the stated reasons for the attack. Ukraine’s intention to join NATO has been pushed into the background, while the fight against Ukrainian nationalism has moved to the forefront. This shift is understandable. Russian claims about biolaboratories breeding virus-carrying mosquitoes and about a “dirty bomb” at Chornobyl were never substantiated. As a result, the narrative has been slightly reshaped, and the alleged threat of genocide against Russians has become the dominant theme in Putinist ideology. It is no coincidence that museums dedicated to the history of political repression during the Stalin era in Russia are being repurposed as museums of the alleged genocide of the Soviet people.
During the panel discussion, Putin was also asked about his reaction to a letter from Volodymyr Zelenskyy proposing a personal meeting. Putin’s response made it clear that he had not read the entire letter. Instead, the Russian president spent considerable time discussing Zelenskyy’s legitimacy and describing the successes of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine. Yet Putin did not comment on the figures cited in the letter regarding Russian military losses, Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory, or the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ operations in the Donbas.
I believe that if he had familiarized himself with this information, he would have taken the opportunity to publicly refute it. Apparently, however, Putin’s entourage did not want to upset their boss and chose not to show him the entire letter. After all, telling Putin the truth is a dangerous proposition. When a king realizes that he is naked, it may not only be the tailor who loses his head – the entire court that made the king look foolish may also pay the price.
Putin Loses His Composure When Confronted with the Truth
Putin’s image as a successful leader of a great country, confident in his future, does not withstand confrontation with the truth – especially when that truth is bitter and unpleasant. In such moments, the masks of respectability, benevolence, and relaxed self-assurance fall away one by one. This was evident, for example, when an Indian journalist asked Putin during a June 4 press conference about the risks of cooperation between India and Russia in the context of sanctions. Putin immediately and angrily retorted: “Where did you get that from?! There are no negative consequences!”
An even sharper reaction came when an American journalist from the Associated Press, James Jordan, raised the issue of alleged Russian covert activities in European countries since 2022. Jordan stated that hundreds of cases of unlawful Russian actions had been documented, including sabotage, attempted assassinations, cyberattacks, and influence operations. “Does this mean that Russia is already at war with the West, or is there a risk of escalation?” Jordan asked.
Putin replied: “It means only an attempt by certain political figures in Western European countries to carry out their aggressive plans against the Russian Federation!” The logic is, of course, startling. Moreover, the remark was hurled at the audacious American journalist with such visible fury that, if words had physical weight, he would have been killed on the spot.
Destroying Ukraine and Breaking Up the European Union
Putin’s attempts to react to everything with sheer whataboutism and shift the blame onto others have become the core principle of the Kremlin’s communication policy. People tell Putin: “You invaded Ukraine.” Putin replies: “No, it was Ukraine that attacked Russia, and we are merely responding to Ukrainian terrorism.” He is asked: “Are you planning a war against Europe?” He answers: “No, it is Europe and NATO that are planning to attack and destroy Russia.” Yet when Putin is asked, “Do you want to end the war in Ukraine?” his response is: “We want to defeat Ukraine.”
On this point, at least, he is being honest. What he does not disclose are the details of his plans. That task was taken up by two of the leading ideologues of the Putin regime – Alexander Dugin and Konstantin Malofeev – who also spoke at the forum in St. Petersburg. They defined Russia’s strategy for survival as follows: twenty years of war, the destruction of Ukraine, and the dismantling of the European Union. That, too, was stated quite openly.
Without a military victory over Ukraine, the Putinist state is, in their view, condemned to stagnation, crisis, and eventual collapse. The use of nuclear weapons to achieve a final solution to the “Ukrainian question” would expose Putin to severe international consequences and risk alienating allies such as China and India. Therefore, his only remaining option is to wage a prolonged military campaign while attributing all of Russia’s domestic problems to a forced struggle against external enemies.
Without weakening the European Union and creating a buffer zone of European states friendly to the Putin regime, Russia will not be able to overcome its technological backwardness or regain broad access to European markets. Moreover, despite his constant criticism of the West and his descriptions of Europe’s supposed economic and civilizational decline, Putin appears to harbor a deep sense of inferiority toward the West. As a result, he continually seeks to prove Russia’s superiority.
The War Against Ukraine as a Prelude to Further Expansion of the “Russian World” in Europe
One of the iconic figures in European culture is the “man of marble.” Putin, however, seems to be cast from a different alloy – envy and hatred. For him, the assault on Ukraine, viewed as a bastion protecting the Europe he despises, is not only a geopolitical struggle but also a personal and existential one, as well as a prelude to the expansion of the “Russian World” across the continent.
It appears that certain decisions have already been made, because the rhetoric of Russian politicians – never known for diplomatic subtlety – has become particularly cynical in recent months. A few days ago, Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, criticized Washington for linking the restoration of economic cooperation between the United States and Russia to the end of the war in Ukraine. “We consider this approach mistaken,” Peskov stated.
According to this logic, the Kremlin apparently knows better than Americans themselves what is good or bad for the United States.
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, has openly pledged to defend the rights of Russians and the Russian language in any region of the world. Presumably, this could include the use of military force – a corresponding law has already been adopted. Meanwhile, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council and former president, described Ursula von der Leyen as a “thermonuclear fool” because of her statement that drone-related incidents in European countries are a consequence of Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine.
How are we in Europe to react to Russia’s manifest refusal to pursue compromise, lasting peace, and mutual security guarantees? First, there should be no negotiations with Moscow until hostilities in Ukraine have ceased. Second, Europe should continue the detoxification of Russian influence. Third, European states must continuously strengthen their defense capabilities. And above all, there must be no displays of weakness – because, as the saying goes, it is the weak who get beaten.
Translation of the article from the Russian original published in Postimees.
Read also on PostPravda.Info: Information War: Adherents of the “Russian World” Attack Estonia’s Media
