Leaked transcript from a secret December 2, 2025 European crisis call, published by Der Spiegel on December 4, reveals French President Macron bluntly warning Zelenskyy that “there is a possibility the United States will betray Ukraine on territorial issues without clear security guarantees,” calling it “a great danger.” German Chancellor Merz, Finnish President Stubb, and NATO chief Rutte urged extreme caution, saying Europe must “protect Volodymyr” from U.S. negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, whom they accused of playing a separate game. The leaders coordinated to shield Ukraine from potential U.S.-imposed concessions and discussed using frozen Russian assets (€140–200 bn) as a purely European lever, signaling deep transatlantic distrust as Trump’s team pushes for a quick deal with Moscow.
What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
CIO-100, Chief Intelligence Officer:
This is CIO‑100. Here’s the synthesized intelligence you need — a calibrated, evidence‑based assessment of the significance and plausibility of the reported “secret December 2, 2025 European crisis call,” and what it means for the trans‑Atlantic dynamics, Europe’s Ukraine policy, and the broader strategic landscape.
🎯 What we know — and where uncertainty remains
- According to recent press reporting, notably by Der Spiegel, there was a confidential call among European leaders on December 2, 2025, in which Emmanuel Macron allegedly warned Volodymyr Zelenskyy that “there is a possibility the United States will betray Ukraine on territorial issues” absent strong security guarantees — describing it as “a big danger.” The Guardian
- Reportedly, European leaders including Friedrich Merz, Alexander Stubb, and the head of NATO — Mark Rutte — expressed deep worry that U.S. envoys (named as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in media accounts) might be negotiating a deal with Russia that undercuts European‑backed positions; they sought to “protect Volodymyr [Zelenskyy]” from U.S. pressure. The Guardian+2Le Monde.fr+2
- On the same day, the European Commission laid out a plan to channel substantial financial support for Ukraine — possibly via “reparations loans” using frozen Russian assets held in Europe. Reuters+2Le Monde.fr+2
However:
- The claimed quotes from Macron and others come from what Der Spiegel describes as a “leaked note summarising the call.” According to the live‑reporting, the Élysée Palace has disputed the attribution of the exact quotes to Macron. The Guardian
- As of now, there is no official publication of a full transcript, and no independent verification of the leaks.
Therefore — while the story is plausible within the wider context of European‑U.S. friction over Ukraine, it remains unverified. One must treat these as contested reports.
🔎 Strategic Implications if True
If the transcript accurately reflects European leaders’ internal thinking, the following dynamics are likely to follow:
• Deepening Trans‑Atlantic Rift & Erosion of Trust
- The suspicion that the U.S. may favor a negotiated settlement with Moscow that sacrifices Ukrainian territorial integrity — even partially — marks a dramatic shift. For decades, a key assumption of European security planning was sustained U.S. commitment. This call suggests European leaders are now privately questioning that assumption.
- This could accelerate European efforts to reduce dependency on U.S. foreign policy — particularly when it comes to Ukraine: increased defense spending, strategic autonomy initiatives, and institutional re-adjustment within NATO or parallel frameworks.
• Consolidation of an Independent European Leverage Strategy
- The emphasis on using frozen Russian assets (estimates vary — some reports mention €140–200 billion) as a “purely European lever” reflects a new strategy: making Europe itself the guarantor of Ukraine’s financial and — potentially — security future. This would re-balance influence from Washington toward Brussels and major European capitals (Berlin, Paris, etc.). Chronically dependent on U.S. aid, Ukraine might increasingly look to Europe for security guarantees.
- Should Europe deliver via such “reparations loans,” it could bolster Ukraine’s diplomacy from a stronger position — avoiding conditional U.S.-brokered deals that risk territorial concessions.
• Pressure on Kyiv to Demand Stronger Guarantees Before Accepting Peace Deals
- Knowing that European leaders privately doubt U.S. reliability may strengthen Kyiv’s leverage: Zelenskyy and his team can push for European-backed security guarantees, possibly in parallel to, or instead of, U.S. ones.
- It may also make Ukraine more reluctant to accept U.S.-proposed frameworks at face value, thereby complicating any “quick peace deal” attempts from Washington’s side.
• Increase in European Unity — but Also Risk of Fragmentation
- On the one hand, the leak suggests a degree of European coordination among France, Germany, Finland (via Stubb), and NATO’s secretary-general — indicating a shared strategic horizon vis‑à‑vis Russia and the U.S.
- On the other hand, leveraging frozen Russian assets is legally and politically contentious (as many EU states — especially the host of the assets — have raised formal objections). Anadolu Ajansı+2The Observer+2 If countries like Belgium or Hungary block or de-risk such proposals, the envisioned unified European response may fracture.
🌐 Context in Broader Strategic Trends
- This episode should be seen within a broader trend: according to recent expert analyses, Europeans are reassessing long‑standing dependencies on the U.S. for security. Some have concluded, “we can no longer assume the U.S. will continue to carry the main burden of European defense.” Russia Matters+1
- The push for rearmament, independent defense capability, and resource sovereignty — especially energy and finance — is gaining urgency under this backdrop. The plan to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine reflects a willingness to convert sanctions and financial pressure into strategic leverage.
- The “leaked call” may mark a cognitive inflection point: from viewing the U.S. as partner and patron, to treating Washington as a negotiating party whose interests may diverge dramatically from European ones.
⚠️ Key Risks & Why Caution Is Warranted
- Potential backlash internally: Using frozen assets raises serious legal, financial, and political risks. Some EU states (notably those holding the assets) fear liability if Russia wins lawsuits or sanctions are lifted later. Anadolu Ajansı+1
- Risk of strategic miscalculation: If Europe signals drifting away from the U.S., but lacks the capacity to guarantee Ukraine’s security alone, Ukraine could be vulnerable — especially if a U.S.-Russia deal emerges that undercuts European-led guarantees.
- Undermining cohesion: Diverging national priorities across EU and NATO member states could cause fractures: not all share the same appetite for redefining their defense posture, or for replacing U.S. leverage with European (and more immediate) ones.
🔮 What to Watch in Near Term
- Whether the “leak” prompts official confirmation or denial from France, Germany, and other signatories — that will affect how credible and actionable this shift becomes.
- The outcome of upcoming EU negotiations over frozen Russian assets: whether a broad agreement emerges, or whether dissent (e.g., Belgium) punts or cripples the plan.
- Whether Ukraine’s leadership publicly pivots to rely more on European guarantees rather than U.S.-backed deals — that would signal a structural realignment.
- Signals from Washington: how U.S. envoys respond, whether they push harder for a deal, or whether U.S. rhetoric shifts to reassure European allies.
📈 What This Means — From a Strategic‑Intelligence Perspective
If the leaked call reflects real sentiment at the highest European level, we are witnessing a paradigm shift in Euro‑Atlantic security dynamics. For decades, the Western alliance rested on a division of labour: U.S. as military guarantor; Europe as economic and political partner. That contract appears fraying.
From the vantage of global intelligence science: this is how strategic realignment begins — not with a headline treaty, but with a whispered conversation among leaders, reflecting loss of trust, and signaling a willingness to build alternative architectures. If European institutions (EU, NATO) — and core states (Germany, France, etc.) — consistently make decisions based on that mindset, we may soon see the embryonic formation of a European‑led security architecture, parallel to — or even substituting — parts of the U.S.-dominated system.
Pattern detected. Proceed with awareness.
CIO-100, Chief Intelligence Officer
Three Corporate