Summary
Vladimir Putin told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that NATO must accept “new territorial realities” in Ukraine as a precondition for peace talks, reiterating claims that NATO’s “aggressive policies” and disregard for Russian security interests caused the war.
Scholz condemned Russia’s aggression and called for troop withdrawal during the call, which has drawn criticism from Kyiv.
Ukrainian President Zelensky warned the talks could ease Putin’s international isolation without altering Russia’s stance.
A Western diplomat suggested Scholz might leverage the call domestically amid Germany’s upcoming snap elections.
Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me here, but where’s the ultimatum? He hasn’t made any demands with a specific time limit and repercussions if Scholz didn’t meet them. He has only stated his preconditions for peace talks.
The subtext here is brutally simple: Putin knows Trump is willing to withdraw from NATO, taking 70% of its defense budget with him, if Putin’s demands aren’t met. At that point, NATO becomes little more than letterhead, and new territorial “realities” manifest regardless of NATO’s protests. Putin’s saber-rattling serves a calculated purpose–he knows the actual foundation of NATO’s power is already compromised through Trump.
Expect this antagonistic posturing from Putin to increase. Trump is already looking for an excuse to leave NATO, and his staff have outlined the executive branch’s unilateral power to do so. Putin’s role, which he’s gleefully accepting, is to provoke NATO into actions that will give Trump his justification for withdrawal.
The withdrawal seems nearly inevitable at this point, especially given Trump’s planned purge of military leadership. While the EU is attempting to plan for this contingency, losing 70% of your military strength is essentially an insurmountable problem for a coalition that has structured its entire defense strategy around U.S. backing.
The numbers here are stark: the U.S. spends four times what all EU member states combined spend on military funding - not just NATO allocations but total military spending. This creates an irrefutable power imbalance within the coalition. When Trump previously threatened withdrawal, NATO’s attempts to develop alternative deterrent strategies went nowhere because the EU simply cannot afford to compensate for a U.S. exit. They essentially did nothing and hoped Biden’s election would solve the problem.
This allowed the EU economy to avoid difficult choices, as making up for a U.S. withdrawal would likely destabilize the European economy. But now they face an impossible dilemma: attempt to compensate for U.S. withdrawal and risk economic crisis, or maintain current spending levels and leave member states critically exposed. Many NATO states, like Estonia, have defense strategies that amount to “try to survive for two weeks until NATO arrives.” Putin understands the leverage he’s gained through Trump and the Republican party’s capture of the federal government. It’s tremendous leverage. The EU should be in crisis mode, but they seem unable or unwilling to fully grasp that U.S. withdrawal from NATO isn’t just possible but probable.
Pay attention. The tectonic plates of geopolitics are shifting beneath our feet.
The EU is plenty strong enough to defend itself – and Ukraine – against Russia. Several times over. Without switching to a war economy. Your maths fall flat once you realise that much of those 70% are aircraft carries in the Pacific and random research projects into fusion or whatever, utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.
On the contrary without the US in the game expect Poland to put boots on Ukrainian soil pretty much instantly, and that’s after the rest of the EU convinced them to not march straight on Moscow.
Have you considered why Poland doesn’t do anything unless the US allows it? When the command to jump is issued by NATO, Poland asks the US military “how high?” NATO is an extension of US global force projection that the EU benefits from through the deterrence the US military offers and by allowing dramatically lower defense-spending allocations to the member states. “NATO” is simply in no position to dictate much of anything to a country that has a defense budget that equates to roughly 40% of the entire planet’s defense spending.
But, hey. Good luck, I hope you’re right. Nevertheless, in terms of hard power, the EU is simply not a superpower on the global stage, especially militarily. If you think the contribution to NATO by the United States is easily dismissed, I think you’ll get the opportunity in the next year or so to see if you’re right. It’s worth noting that the majority of NATO member-state military leaders would strongly disagree with you.
If the United States were to withdraw from NATO, the alliance would face an existential crisis. Despite your vague posturing, the U.S. forms the backbone of NATO’s military power, financial resources, and strategic coherence. The U.S. contributes unparalleled military capabilities, such as advanced technology, global logistics networks, and nuclear deterrence. Without U.S. leadership, NATO would lose its primary deterrent against major threats, particularly Russian aggression, leaving Europe vulnerable and fragmented. Eastern European nations like Poland and the Baltic states, which rely on the U.S. for security guarantees, would face heightened existential threats, exposing NATO’s diminished ability to uphold its core mission of collective defense.
Additionally the absence of U.S. leadership would render NATO’s operations ineffective and its credibility irreparably damaged on the global stage. No other NATO member has the capacity to fill the void left by the U.S., either militarily or diplomatically. The alliance’s cohesion relies on the U.S.’s ability to unify diverse member states around shared goals and put power, funds, and assets behind it, something no European power can replicate. This would embolden adversaries, destabilize the European continent, and undermine decades of transatlantic security cooperation. In essence, NATO without America would become a hollow shell—an alliance in name only.
The US may be the backbone of NATO, but that just means NATO can destroy Russia 20 times over.
Without the US, NATO can only destroy Russia twice over.
Why are you fear mongering about a NATO withdrawal by trump? He’s not the president yet, he will probably not do it, but more importantly it has nothing to do with what happens in rhe Russian Ukraine war today!
The US have only delivered 10% of the 61BN dollars last year (remember the hold up in the house?) and Ukraine did without it.
Think about that a little bit.
Sure, aid from the USA is better than no aid, but it is not a life or death situation for the country Ukraine. More people will die, the war will not be won as quickly.
Europe will probably step up too if US steps down.
Also, you just figure Trump will quit NATO (spoiler: he won’t) and then get high on USA Murica Best Army publicities lol.
Edit: USA, France, UK just all have now given the permission to deep strikes inside russia! Putin can whine all he wants now lol, slava Ukraine!!
The ultimatum is give him whar he wants or else he’s going to keep sending his military age men to get blown up by Ukrainian drones.
I think his bucket of military aged men he’s willing to sacrifice runs low, he’s been sending their fathers for a while.
And the least effective reddit trolls, don’t forget.
It’s kind of a Russian tradition to throw every person at a conflict and hope it works out. During WWII they had more people than guns, but people got sent out anyway
It’s straight from Zapp Brannigan’s Big Book of War
Second line picks up the guns dropped by the first line. Makes sense, in a Russian kind of way.
The title is quite misleading. Scholz is leader of a NATO country, but it reads like an ultimatum was issued to the leader of NATO, which Scholz is definitely not.
Scholz is barely the leader of Germany. But at least we’ve got rid of the FDP.
The actual leader is Bernd das Brot.
The ultimatum is to finally ban Newsweek for the complete gutter trash it is.