The Long Council
Who was selected, and why
How to talk to Putin, or negotiate succesfully?
The central tension
Between treating Putin as a rational strategic actor who can be influenced through incentives versus recognizing him as an authoritarian leader whose decision-making is shaped by regime survival calculations that may not respond to conventional diplomatic pressure.
Selected members
Helmut Schmidt
Will argue: Negotiate from strength while keeping channels open; Putin respects power and consistency more than moral arguments.
Managed relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and understood how to negotiate with authoritarian counterparts from a position of principled realism. · His Ostpolitik experience, détente management, and documented private communications with Brezhnev during the Polish crisis provide direct precedent for managing adversarial relationships with Russian leaders while maintaining Western unity.
Henry Kissinger
Will argue: Understand Putin's conception of Russian interests and provide face-saving exits while maintaining credible deterrence.
Architect of détente with the Soviet Union and expert in realpolitik negotiations with authoritarian leaders who operate from different strategic frameworks. · His negotiations with Brezhnev, Zhou Enlai, and other Cold War adversaries, plus his documented analysis of Putin's strategic thinking in recent interviews and writings.
Sun Tzu
Will argue: Study Putin's actual constraints and motivations; create conditions where cooperation serves his interests better than confrontation.
His framework addresses how to achieve strategic objectives against adversaries through positioning, intelligence, and managing perception rather than direct confrontation. · His principles on knowing the adversary, using deception and misdirection, and achieving victory without fighting directly apply to diplomatic negotiations with experienced strategic opponents.
Niccolò Machiavelli
Will argue: Putin respects strength and fears weakness; successful negotiation requires credible alternatives to agreement.
His analysis of power dynamics and the relationship between fear, respect, and negotiation applies directly to dealing with authoritarian leaders who prioritize regime survival. · His frameworks on when to use force versus diplomacy, how to manage adversaries, and the importance of being both feared and respected in negotiations.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Will argue: Personal diplomacy matters with autocrats; focus on concrete interests rather than values while maintaining alliance cohesion.
Successfully negotiated with Stalin at Yalta and through wartime summits, understanding how to work with authoritarian leaders while maintaining democratic coalition unity. · His documented approach to Stalin negotiations, coalition management with Churchill, and strategic patience in building relationships with difficult counterparts.
Considered but not selected
Mandela: His reconciliation framework assumes willingness to transform relationships; Putin shows no evidence of seeking fundamental change in Russia's position
Lee Kuan Yew: His small-state strategies don't apply when dealing with a major power from a position of relative equality
Ali ibn Abi Talib: His governance principles assume shared moral framework; Putin operates from different legitimacy sources