So, who might Vladimir Putin have for lunch?

During the recent U.S. presidential debate, the candidates tackled a familiar foreign policy debate: who will ultimately be Vladimir Putin’s “puppet”? Kamala Harris or Donald Trump?

In a heated discussion, Harris accused Trump of being weak against Putin, stating he was a “dictator who would eat you for lunch.” She warned that if Trump was president, Putin would be “sitting in Kyiv right now with his eyes on the rest of Europe.” Trump countered, suggesting that Putin actually favors Harris, saying, “Putin endorsed her last week. He said he hopes she wins, and I think he meant it.”

Russia was not pleased with this exchange.

“We still wish they would leave our president alone,” Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov remarked at a Wednesday press briefing.

How would Harris and Trump approach Russia’s war in Ukraine?

The debate included a back-and-forth regarding Putin as part of a broader discussion about the conflict in Ukraine and American national security interests.

Trump reiterated his claim that he knows the best method to broker a peace deal between both sides, though he did not specify his approach. He also did not state if he preferred Ukraine to succeed in the war, while Harris emphasized the legitimacy of Ukraine’s defense efforts.

For Harris, mentioning Putin was a strategy to highlight her foreign policy experience and resonate with voters in crucial states like Pennsylvania. While discussing her belief that Putin would invade Kyiv if Trump were in power, she pointed out that this would allow the Russian leader to threaten Poland. “Why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would concede for the sake of a perceived friendship with a dictator?” she challenged Trump.

Why the negativity?

Russia appeared unimpressed by the arguments presented in the debate.

“We are not pleased with this,” Peskov mentioned during the briefing. He noted that the U.S., regardless of which party its candidates belong to, maintains a negative and unfriendly stance toward Russia. He argued that the name “Putin” is used as a tool in the internal political struggles within the United States.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova likened the debate to famous boxers battling on the Titanic, the ill-fated British ship. “In the end, people ask, ‘Who won?’ Does it truly matter? This is the Titanic. In 15 minutes, they’ll hit the iceberg,” she quipped on Russian state-run Sputnik Radio.

Earlier this month, Putin appeared to jokingly indicate that his preference leaned toward Harris in the upcoming election.

“She laughs so expressively and contagiously that it signifies she is doing well,” the Russian president commented during a forum in Vladivostok. Nonetheless, deciphering Putin’s actual political beliefs and goals is complicated, as he and his close associates often respond to Western allegations of misinformation and deceit with sarcasm or flat-out lies.

Typically, foreign officials avoid making statements about political contests in other nations to avoid complications with future leaders they may need to deal with. Nevertheless, some German officials seemed to break this understanding following the Tuesday debate.

After Trump critiqued Germany’s energy policies and suggested the country had reconsidered its renewable energy efforts, the German foreign ministry issued a rare, direct rebuttal.

“Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with over 50% renewables. We are decommissioning—not constructing—coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest,” the ministry stated in a post on X. They added, “PS: We also don’t eat cats and dogs,” responding to Trump’s unfounded claims during the debate that Haitian immigrants in Ohio were abducting and consuming pets.

Michael Roth, who heads the foreign affairs committee in the German Parliament, went even further, stating that Harris “defeated” Trump in the debate and emerged as a candidate of change.

“She expertly provoked Trump, and he stepped right into it. Despite her being part of the current government, Trump came off as an outdated incumbent—old, angry, and disoriented,” Roth commented on X.

One nation that seemed overly cautious about potentially upsetting the future U.S. president was Ukraine. Ukraine has been urging allies for months to allow it to strike Russian territory with Western long-range missiles to counter Russian assaults. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, currently in Ukraine, has suggested that the U.S. and U.K. may be close to allowing such actions.

“Great debates,” tweeted Mykhailo Podolyak, a senior adviser to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, early Wednesday, maintaining a neutral stance.

The teams have prepared well. Their emotions are balanced, and their arguments are logical. The candidates’ positions are clearly defined.