German opposition leader Friedrich Merz urges Chancellor to provide Ukraine with Taurus cruise missiles for attacks on Russian military targets. The article argues that Germany should follow France’s example by supporting Ukraine’s defensive capabilities, as the Russian army continues relentless attacks. It highlights concerns about Germany’s military readiness, NATO’s security needs, and critiques the government’s insufficient response. The piece underscores the importance of maintaining a strong deterrent against Russia to ensure peace in Europe amidst rising tensions.
Recently, Friedrich Merz, the leader of the German opposition, urged Chancellor Olaf Scholz to provide the Taurus cruise missile to Ukraine for strikes on Russian military targets. Is Germany doing enough to aid Ukraine in its defense?
Absolutely. I have long admired the French strategy, which permits Ukraine to target military installations in Russia that pose a direct threat. Germany should follow this lead and supply long-range weaponry like the Taurus, as recommended by the Bundestag.
Is this really essential?
The Russian military cannot be defeated solely on the front lines. Their relentless assaults are depleting Ukrainian forces, leaving destruction in their wake, which aims to fracture Ukrainian resolve. Additionally, Russia seeks to weaken and divide the West. The Ukrainians’ approach of targeting logistics sites, command centers, supply lines, and missile launch sites—which can be located 200 to 300 kilometers from the border—is a strategic move to neutralize the Russian offensive. Such actions must be supported if Ukraine hopes to succeed in its defense.
Carsten Breuer, a senior German military leader, highlighted that Russia produces 1,500 new battle tanks each year. Meanwhile, a recent analysis by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy suggests that it will take Germany a century to sufficiently equip the Bundeswehr at the current procurement pace. Are you concerned about stability in Europe?
Certainly, I am concerned about peace in Europe. However, the situation is not as alarming as it may seem to others, as some are being intentionally provoked by fear-mongers. We still possess the capability to respond and take necessary actions. Properly equipping the Bundeswehr is a constitutional obligation that everyone agrees is necessary.
Not everyone agrees, however.
Let me clarify: there should be consensus on this issue. NATO establishes what is required to defend its territory. By the end of the year, new targets will be set for the first time since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The responsibilities will be allocated based on factors such as country size, economic capability, population, and geographical circumstances. This system aims to prevent unnecessary overlaps or gaps in defense capabilities. Since 2017, this approach has been in place, avoiding national solo initiatives in military planning. Not every nation needs to possess every asset. This is why adherence to NATO capability goals has consistently appeared in key security policy documents in Germany and is enshrined in the coalition agreement of the governing parties. This isn’t about generals needing more than necessary; it’s about fulfilling our commitments to the Alliance for the sake of our collective security.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius and military leaders have expressed concerns that Russia could be poised to threaten other European nations, including NATO allies, in the coming years. Isn’t this fear overstated, especially with NATO’s nuclear arsenal?
The government views Russia as the foremost threat to peace and freedom in the Euro-Atlantic region for the foreseeable future—a stance outlined in the National Security Strategy. Both Boris Pistorius and the Inspector General of the German Armed Forces have indicated the necessity of building a deterrent against Russia in the next three to five years, as the risk of Russian aggression against Europe appears plausible. These projections are not mere speculation; they stem from thorough interdepartmental assessments. The warnings from German intelligence and military leadership regarding the Russian danger are unprecedented and warrant serious consideration.
Considering Russia’s broader military intentions in the future, what do you perceive as a realistic scenario?
Russia currently possesses numerous capabilities that aren’t being engaged in Ukraine, and it is actively enhancing its land forces. While the immediate threat of a large-scale ground war isn’t pressing, Russia might eventually feel inclined to attack NATO territories, either as a test or to gain leverage. Russia’s clear political objective is to expel American influence from Europe and undermine both NATO and the European Union.
Many left-wing politicians assert that Russia lacks interest in NATO aggression.
Before the invasion of Ukraine, many, including myself, underestimated the potential for such an escalation, given the significant political and military risks involved for Russia. Historical perspectives have proven misleading, particularly regarding Russian intentions. We can no longer afford to be naïve.
However, Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, which changes the dynamic.
Putin’s ambitions to revive the Soviet empire are unmistakable. He has explicitly expressed this desire, and Russia experts have long warned that we have underappreciated this threat. Those who believe Russia will avoid conflicts with NATO should take a closer look at the Baltic states, where fears of Russian aggression are palpable.
Isn’t there a chance that Russia simply aims to create discord within NATO?
We could speculate endlessly about Russia’s motives and future actions. What’s crucial, however, is that Russia