Strategic Implications of a Scholz - Putin phone call.

Sponsored by Chart API: a one-click online solution that provides real-time tax records for banks and financial advisors. We help financial advisors onboard their customers super fast by preventing the pain of sharing tax transcripts manually. We also help banks make lending decisions faster by enabling income verification and lending risk screening at a lightening speed. Customers share their tax records with one click online consent forms, and connect via their IRS online accounts or commercial tax solutions like TurboTax.

Book your free custom demo here.

Strategic calculus behind Scholz’s outreach.

• Attention to the incentives structures at play.

• German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was clearly not expecting a major breakthrough when deciding to call Putin.

• He is not naive - he must have known that this conversation would most likely not lead anywhere productive and that on the contrary, would come with significant costs - and that it would instead open up the Pandora’s box as suggested by (rightly) frustrated President Zelensky.

• So why do this? Why would Scholz embark on this fruitless endeavor, and why now?

• Here, the overall context matters: President Trump is the incoming leader of the free world and he has made it very clear that he will be talking to Putin.

• (side note: and has already started with a phone call - where he allegedly warned Putin not to escalate - hinting at large US military presence in Europe. Although Putin denies this.)

• And so from Scholz’s perspective, he can either hop on that train as well or risk Germany being sidelined as a passive observer.

• The worry here is serious and real: what if Trump and Putin buddy up and come to terms and Germany and other NATO powers in Europe are eventually forced to accept the outcomes decided by the US and Russia over its/their head?

• In fact, Trump’s phone call created this incentive for all major European powers.

• But it was Scholz that was the most amenable and first to give into his nerves.

• Let us not mince words here, from the very outset, Scholz has been the most timid leader amongst Ukraine’s European backers.

• There were of course other leaders who were more indifferent to Ukraine’s plight.

• But Scholz stood out as for his simultaneous care/concern for Ukraine coupled with sheer indecisiveness and timidity.

• Leaders matter, and a stronger/more resolute leader would have held his nerve.

• Because to be clear, there is an alternative play here: German (and other European leaders) could have acted as if nothing changed, and in fact, amped up the intensity of their support for Ukraine - Trump could simply not go over their heads if Europe rose up to the challenge with appropriate vigor.

• Given Europe’s industrial and economic potential, there simply is no reason for it not to stand up to Russia and help Kyiv defeat (let alone defend itself from) the Russian army in Ukraine.

• And at the very least, if Scholz nevertheless calculated that conversing with Putin was still the best way forward, well in that case, he could at least consult Macron, Starmer, Meloni, and Tusk and could have arranged a group call to convince Putin to back off (what he allegedly tried to do).

Initial outcomes

1) Trite statements and lifting diplomatic isolation

• Reportedly, Scholz informed Putin that he had not achieved his overall goal for the war - the subjugation of Ukraine - in the past three years.

• Great, well done - as if Putin cares what Scholz thinks?

• Seriously, what is even the point of this other than providing an excuse to Ukrainians in the form of ‘‘I made sure Putin knows he is failing” ?

• Naturally, this banal statement will have precisely zero impact on Putin’s strategic calculus.

• Furthermore, is this even true? Did he really fail? The war is not over yet, Ukraine is on its back foot, and Kyiv’s most consequential and premier EU ally - Germany - is still refusing to provide all the necessary equipment (like the long-range Taurus missiles - more on that later below).

• Putin on the other hand, doesn’t have a similar problem - his allies like Iran and North Korea are willing to provide whatever Russia needs - be it manpower or any sort of missile and/or artillery platform.

• We are just lucky that his allies are poor and desperate themselves, and in no position to provide decisive platforms like F-16s or ATACMS.

• And besides, Putin was clearly successful enough to convince Western leaders like Trump and Scholz to call him and discuss the war without the presence of Ukraine.

• He is successful enough that he can insist on a potential negotiation that solidifies Russia’s current territorial gains (more on that later below).

• He is successful enough that Scholz has decided to lift the Europe-wide diplomatic isolation on Russia (Hungary doesn’t count for much). and this is significant: as Zelensky said, this is indeed Pandora’s box.