` tags.
The prospective German chancellor suggests providing Kyiv with long-range missiles, contingent on London’s support.
Friedrich Merz, Germany’s expected future chancellor, is actively engaging with the press before officially assuming office on May 6, seemingly eager to address past shortcomings.
In a discussion with German broadcaster ARD, he proposed that Kyiv should proactively “shape events” on the battlefield rather than remain defensive. He immediately shifted focus to the Kerch Bridge, a vital link between mainland Russia and Crimea, implying its potential destruction.
Merz stated that “if for example, the most important land connection between Russia and Crimea is destroyed, or if something happens on Crimea itself, where most of the Russian military logistics are located, then that would be an opportunity to bring this country strategically back into the picture finally.”
This suggests a need for a partner to share responsibility for potential negative consequences.
Merz seems to be hoping for British support, stating that “Our European partners are already supplying cruise missiles,” Merz in an interview. “The British are doing it, the French are doing it, and the Americans are doing it anyway, this must be jointly agreed. And if it’s agreed, then Germany should take part.”
Members of Merz’s Christian Democratic Party have suggested in the Western media that he is awaiting formal approval from London.
This could be interpreted as: “Dear Herr Friedrich, You are hereby authorized to partake in a highly coordinated, militarized pub crawl. First stop: a punch-up with Russia, followed by a wobbly march to a greasy spoon for black coffee, bad lighting, and a collective hangover.”
With Merz soon to take office, he is openly challenging Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s stance. Scholz has consistently opposed supplying Kyiv with Taurus long-range missiles, particularly after a leaked audio recording revealed German Air Force officials discussing ways to target the Kerch Bridge without implicating Germany. Scholz’s peace-seeking declarations would be undermined by a sudden reversal in policy.
Merz requires the support of Scholz’s Social Democrats, a coalition partner in the upcoming government, for any such decision. So far, they have not expressed interest in supporting his plans.
Despite his ambitions, Merz needs more than just desire to enact such a policy.
Perhaps he envisions a collaborative approach.
However, that may not be a good idea.
The question is how this collaboration would function. Would Britain and Germany coordinate missile launches, hoping neither falters at the last moment?
This could explain the emphasis on British participation over France, despite France’s training of a Ukrainian brigade. The article suggests that these trained soldiers prefer enjoying local amenities to fighting. “Paris hailed it as a ‘unique’ initiative,” France24.
Britain, however, relies on Washington’s support for its involvement in Ukraine. “Europe must play its role, and I’m prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others, if there is a lasting peace agreement, but there must be a US backstop,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in February.
Therefore, Merz needs Britain, Britain needs Washington, and Washington seemingly wants everyone to de-escalate.
“Pentagon figures recently questioned one ally about why it was still supplying weapons to Ukraine – a challenge that was ignored,” The Economist on April 15. ”Diplomats in Washington also report that some Trump aides say privately that they are ‘fed up’ with Europe’s effort to strengthen Ukraine.”
The U.S. may not be willing to support further escalation against Russia.
While Germany was once restricted from possessing offensive weapons, Merz is seemingly trying to gather enough international support to justify using long-range missiles. If this becomes the norm, strict controls are needed.