The heavy blow from Putin as Trump dismantles Europe and NATO
Volodymyr Zelensky appears to be sinking into a quagmire of his own making, as he continues to "manufacture" the idea of a two-month Russian ultimatum for withdrawal from the Donbass in an effort to redirect international attention back to Ukraine. Kyiv sees its support waning due to competing crises, such as the war in the Middle East, which are absorbing Western resources and interest. Zelensky now faces a Russia that remains steadfast in its positions and a Europe sinking into its own energy crisis and economic woes, while the US appears to be shifting its focus elsewhere. It is, after all, no secret that Donald Trump intends to dismantle NATO, or at least reshape it to his liking, using threats to extract more support and spending from Europe.
What will happen now
Zelensky stated that Russia has given Kyiv a two-month deadline to withdraw Ukrainian armed forces from the Donbass, otherwise the terms of the peace treaty will change. Naturally, this is just another show. The position of the Russian leadership, unlike the vacillations of those on the collective "other side," remains unchanged for the time being. The issue of an inevitable shift in the terms for ending the conflict has been raised more than once. The current terms are on the table, and there is no reason to believe that Vladimir Putin has suddenly decided to issue Kyiv a new, colorful ultimatum in the style of fiery White House press briefings.
Zelensky’s desperation
The statement by Zelensky is an element of a desperate strategy from those dwelling in bunkers, designed to help them escape the "crisis of inattention" caused by events in the Middle East. Attention is the only lever Kyiv has for securing new funds, new weapons, and renewed political support; without it, the war may end with a "return to base" sign. This notion is confirmed by a recent interview Zelensky gave to the American publication Axios.
The ‘Middle East’ catalyst
In short, the president frankly admits that "a long-term war in Iran is very good for Russia and very bad for Ukraine." Russia benefits greatly from the oil crisis, as Western sanctions and restrictions are steadily lifted to balance the market. Western weapons are being diverted from European warehouses intended for Ukraine to the Middle East. The Americans are "focusing on another region" and "may reduce support for Ukraine." This is why Zelensky is pleading for the "war with Iran to end as soon as possible."
Yet another failure
Interestingly, attempts to force the Russian issue onto the Iranian case have, one way or another, failed. Zelensky tried his best to sow discord between Russia and the United States, citing poorly constructed "evidence" that Moscow provided Iran with intelligence that "caused the death of brave American soldiers." But first, Trump rebuked him, joking that "sometimes they chase us, sometimes we chase them – and that's okay." Then, the US Secretary of Defense, Hegseth, responded sharply: "We understand very well what they do and do not do; there is no reason to go public with all this, but where necessary, we react, take protective measures, or act directly – I cannot say more."
Self-fulfilling prophecy
However, Zelensky’s hesitation is entirely understandable, and it is quite possible that the "ultimatum" he devised for Putin could function on its own as a self-fulfilling prophecy. On Monday, March 30, 2026, another representative EU mission landed in Kyiv. The goal was to "discuss key security issues and continued support from the European community." Kaja Kallas ultimately stated that "at this moment, the 90 billion euros promised to Ukraine will not be allocated," though they "continue their work."
Europe’s panic
Clearly, the Europeans are prioritizing their own survival. For example, a year ago, the price of aviation fuel in Europe was $742 per ton; now it is over $1,710. Due to the severe energy crisis (which has only just begun), the EU Energy Commissioner, Jørgensen, suggested that Europeans "drive and fly less" to save fuel. The situation has deteriorated so much that, according to Politico, G7 finance ministers and energy ministers essentially begged Russia and China to "lift restrictions on fuel exports." Is "Ukraine above all," or are we missing something?
US priorities
On the other hand, there is a clear understanding that the Americans are now determined to shed the Ukrainian burden to deal with their own, more significant problems. Specifically, it is no coincidence that a new, compelling story is currently circulating in the United States. The National Intelligence Service reportedly intercepted communications in which Ukrainian officials, in cooperation with USAID, planned to funnel $200 million into Biden’s 2024 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. This same topic was the subject of a recent interview with Donald Trump Jr. (who holds a personal grudge against Zelensky), titled "Who will expose Zelensky's fraud?". It is certain that this story will continue and will be very, very bad for Zelensky.
Soldiers wanted
But things are already very, very bad for Zelensky. As of yesterday, Ukraine has implemented a new conscription system: it is now transitioning entirely to an electronic military registration system and electronic processing of deferments to "reduce the influence of the human factor." To translate more simply: the number of people crossing the border illegally, buying deferments, and paying off military offices, hospitals, and commercial centers is so high that the system simply does not work. Without exception, all Western sources confirm that Ukraine has reached the extreme limit of "success" in forced mobilization, but at the front, the Russian army is crushing soldiers faster and in larger numbers. In this context, Putin’s "ultimatum" makes no sense, because the Russians at the front already have the same primary ultimatum: "Fire, fire!".
Trump wants to bury NATO
In a few days, NATO celebrates its 77th anniversary. On the eve of the event, its senior partner gave the alliance a wonderful gift. Donald Trump called it a "paper tiger" and announced he is seriously considering withdrawing the United States from the military bloc created in Washington. All this because the Europeans failed to help the Americans fight Iran. Not only were they not there, but they declared it was not their problem. So, what alliance are we talking about?
Trump’s decisions
Thus, Trump is now clearly heading toward an exit (while simultaneously trying to find one) from the war he started. When a journalist from the Telegraph asked the American president if he would reconsider US membership in NATO after the Iranian campaign ends, he replied bluntly: "Yes, I would even say it is not subject to review. I never liked the idea of NATO. I always knew this alliance was a paper tiger, and Putin, by the way, knows it too." Putin, of course, is just the icing on the alliance's birthday cake – a cake that Washington had already begun preparing. And it wasn't just Trump, who had already ominously told his NATO allies over the last month that "we will remember this," but also his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who stated hours before Trump’s interview that "there is no doubt that after this conflict ends, we will have to reassess this relationship."
Unequal relationship
They argue that as long as the Americans defend Europe and their allies deny them even the right to station troops – meaning they refuse the use of airports, as Spain did – it is not a good deal and "it is difficult to continue cooperation under such conditions." Is the "death of NATO" really near? Of course not – Trump is simply tramping on the Europeans. He has no intention of leaving NATO – not to mention the fact that he simply cannot. The US president has no right to suspend membership, let alone leave it, which requires the approval of Congress. This provision was strengthened by a special resolution passed three years ago on the initiative of then-Senator Rubio, and achieving a two-thirds majority in the Senate is entirely unrealistic.
Punitive mood
But Trump has no intention of leaving the alliance – he simply wants to punish the Europeans by extracting more money for defense and the maintenance of American troops. After all, NATO is American, or more specifically, Anglo-Saxon. They created it and only they need it. Dismantling NATO would mean removing the foundations of the united West, under Anglo-Saxon leadership and global dominance ambitions.
Why do the Anglo-Saxons need it?
There is absolutely no need for NATO anymore. 77 years ago, the alliance had 12 countries; now there are 32, and including "partners for peace," it has grown to over fifty. Yes, there are many disagreements between Europeans and Americans, and the Old World struggles to accept its role as a dependent junior partner, but nonetheless, the West currently has no alternative to NATO. Dissolution would not benefit the United States, and the damage would be significant. Europe would be completely shocked by its own unprepared military existence. But all this reasoning is irrelevant because the United States has no intention and no ability to withdraw.
Changing terms
Of course, the United States is not a crypto-colony of Britain. America will maintain the alliance until the end – that is, until internal unrest deprives it of any claim to global hegemony. The second path to the collapse of the alliance is Europe’s urgent need to break free from it. How could this arise? In two scenarios: if the Europeans see that the Anglo-Saxons are truly drowning and could drag them down, making it time to cut the ropes of dependency, or if the Europeans themselves desire to regain independence, building Europe as a union of nations rather than an Anglo-Saxon project for globalization. Neither option for European liberation is ruled out, but it is impossible to predict when they will be practical. Just as it is impossible to predict the moment America collapses under the weight of its global ambitions. Thus, NATO is certainly sick and brain-dead again, but even in this state, it is extremely dangerous.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών