This rhetoric came after it became clear that Europe remains vulnerable to drone attacks and that its own air defense systems are far from flawless.Why is Putin doing this?First, he wants to drive a wedge between the EU and Ukraine, leaving Kyiv isolated outside of a U.S.-Russia-Ukraine negotiation triangle. Hybrid attacks across Europe are designed to pressure ordinary citizens into asking: “Why should we help Kyiv? Let’s keep our Patriots at home.”Second, Moscow is desperate for at least partial sanctions relief. Russia’s National Welfare Fund has been drained to finance the war, while oil and gas revenues are underperforming. Against this backdrop, Putin once again delivered a flurry of claims and threats — statements that, under other circumstances, would be better addressed by professional rehabilitation specialists than by political analysts.At Valdai, Vladimir Putin declared that Russia is “closely monitoring the militarization of Europe,” pointing to Germany’s ambition to make its army “the most powerful in Europe.” He threatened that no one should doubt Russia’s response to such militarization, warning it “will not be long in coming.”Here it is worth pausing to thank German voters — and the political establishment — for ensuring that Boris Pistorius remains Germany’s defense minister. Speaking recently at the Warsaw Security Forum, Pistorius was unequivocal: Putin does not want a ceasefire. The only real guarantee of security, he stressed, lies in “the most modern weapons, sufficient resources, and large-scale training of the Ukrainian military.”Meanwhile, Putin cynically claimed at Valdai that Russia “never initiated military confrontation,” even professing deep concern over what he called the “Ukrainian tragedy” — supposedly a shared “pain for Ukrainians and Russians.”He once again resorted to historical manipulation, asserting that “the causes of the Ukrainian conflict are well known to anyone who has taken the trouble to look into its background.” By this he meant the Russian language and Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO. Such arguments resonated during the early stages of the war, when many abroad still struggled to distinguish between Russians and Ukrainians. So Putin blamed the West, accusing it of “encouraging, inciting, and arming Ukraine,” and of fostering “rampant nationalism and neo-Nazism” for decades.This time, Putin accused “globalists and expansionists in the West” of allegedly treating the Ukrainian people as “expendable.” He crowned this narrative with the claim that the war would never have started if Ukraine had retained “its independence, its real sovereignty.”“Unfortunately, it has not yet been possible to stop the fighting. But the responsibility for this lies not with the majority, but with the minority — first and foremost with Europe, which is constantly escalating the conflict,” the Russian dictator said, once again taking aim at the West.Among his latest threats, Putin openly hinted at possible strikes on Ukrainian nuclear power plants: “We know where Ukraine's key energy infrastructure facilities are located, including nuclear power plants, and in the event of provocations from the West or Kyiv, the response will be asymmetrical and will include targets that will make the enemy think twice.”This nuclear scare tactic serves two purposes. First, it is meant to pressure the international community into accepting the integration of the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant into Russia’s energy grid — with the veiled warning that otherwise “there could be another Chornobyl.” Second, it is part of Putin’s old playbook of frightening Europe with nuclear escalation in all its forms. He has already used this tool with some success: recall the fall of 2022, when threats of a nuclear strike against the Biden administration coincided with the West scaling down arms and financial support for Ukraine.Putin is also working hard to project the image of his army as the strongest and most battle-ready in the world. That is why he dismissed U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks that Russia is nothing more than a “paper tiger.” According to Putin, if Russia is a “paper tiger,” then NATO must be one as well.“Go ahead and try to deal with the ‘paper tiger,’” he challenged from the stage.And yet, amid his usual mudslinging at the West and NATO, Putin betrayed a long-nurtured grievance. He admitted that Russia had tried to join NATO twice: first, in 1954, when the USSR submitted an official application that was rejected; and again in 2000, during President Bill Clinton’s visit to Moscow. On that occasion, the idea was raised verbally — but Clinton brushed it off as a joke, and Russia’s request was ignored.So what impression does today's Putin make at today’s Valdai? He is no longer the bare-chested horseman who could sell himself with swagger to leaders like Sarkozy, Merkel, or Clinton. Instead, he increasingly resembles a bitter old man demanding respect and special treatment. And whenever the world refuses to indulge him, he reaches for the same tired threats: to invade a neighbor or to cut off the gas.Therefore, we should expect Russia to continue its acts of hybrid terrorism against EU countries — especially those that have always been supportive of Ukraine and actively participated in defense initiatives. The closer we get to a new round of negotiations involving the U.S., the more actively Putin will try to sever the ties between Ukraine and the EU. So it seems that in the near future, the President of Ukraine will have to personally make every effort to ensure that Ukraine’s Western colleagues are not frightened by drones in the sky and continue to actively support the front line before it shifts to their territory.If Putin's speech in Valdai had not been made, it would have been worth inventing. This finally shatters the myths about Russia and Putin — the amazing leader with a unique soul. I hope that every Western leader, past and present, feels at least a little ashamed that they once drank vodka with Putin and ate caviar because they received cheap gas.Exclusively for EspresoAbout the author: Marina Danyluk-Yarmolaeva, journalistThe editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.