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.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      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!