No issue causes the Germans as much concern as the war in Ukraine. In an interview with ntv.de, Friedrich Merz criticized the Chancellor for his communication on Ukraine policy. But he also says what is in store for Germany in the coming months, under what circumstances the war could end and why he does not expect a nuclear attack by the Russians.
ntv.de: Herr Merz, the Russian attack on Ukraine will be three years away. You went to Kyiv yourself in the spring. What has stuck with you from the visit?
Friedrich Merz: Since then, I have had an even clearer picture of what is at stake. It made a lasting impression on me to see in person the Bucha and Irpin suburbs, where Russia tried to take the city of Kyiv from the north and failed – I saw with my own eyes bombed houses, bombed hospitals, bombed schools. And the personal conversations with those affected, but also with the members of the government, with the President, moved me a lot. All these personal impressions are irreplaceable. And I also got a feeling for the size of this country, after all it is the second largest country in Europe after Russia. After such a visit you have a completely different view of this war.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz always says that Ukraine must not lose the war. Do you understand what goal the Federal Chancellor is pursuing with his policy?
No, I still don’t understand Olaf Scholz’s Ukraine policy. He also leaves many things in the dark. I believe that our support to Ukraine must be aimed at Ukraine winning this war. In the sense of: It restores the unrestricted territorial integrity of the country.
Crimea is what we wanted to ask next…
Crimea is part of Ukraine under international law. For now, however, it is important that Russia at least withdraws beyond the contact line of February 23, 2022. This is the part of Ukrainian territory that the Russian army had already occupied, also with the help of fake referendums, until the open war broke out in February 2022. The fact that Ukraine makes a withdrawal of Russia behind this line a precondition for talks must be conceded to the country. Incidentally, I think it is wrong to say that a war against a nuclear power cannot be won militarily. The Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan, Russia did not win in Syria.
You do not fear the use of Russian nuclear weapons?
My guess is that the Russians themselves know the risk they would be taking. I am sure that both the Chinese and the Americans have given the Russians a very clear line that they must not cross. Nuclear weapons would cross that red line.
No one knows how long the war will last. But what else is in store for Germany in the coming months or even years? The term war economy is already circulating…
I would advise us – even after last week’s decision – not to upgrade verbally. We are not at war and therefore we do not need a war economy. We certainly have to do a lot more for the Bundeswehr, procure and produce equipment and ammunition, but that’s not a war economy.
And the time perspective?
We will have to prepare for the fact that this war will last even longer. And after this war, the world will not be restored until February 24, 2022. We will likely be dealing with a tumbling giant, Russia, for years, if not decades. This is not good for Europe and not good for the world either. But the first goal now must be to stop the war. And that, bitter as it is, can only be done with military strength.
With his attitude, which he has criticized as hesitant, Olaf Scholz also wrested Abrams tanks from the Americans in addition to the European Leopard deliveries. In the end, Ukraine will get more battle tanks. Isn’t that a success?
The Chancellor was criticized from across the European Union and also within NATO. Obviously, in the context of the Ramstein Conference, there was also a loud argument between the head of the Chancellery and the leading officials of the federal government on the one hand and the American Secretary of Defense on the other. If I interpret it correctly, Scholz was only waiting for the Americans and not primarily counting on cooperation with France or other European partners. How long do we actually want to go on doing this, constantly having to ask the Americans for help? I am a transatlantic through and through, but the European Union, this European pillar of NATO, must first of all provide its own answers to a conflict on its territory.
So you would have thought it right if Scholz had organized a European initiative to supply tanks?
Yes, just as the ranks of the SPD correctly said half a year ago. Why hasn’t there been a joint European initiative to supply these tanks? Of course in consultation with Washington, the USA was never against it! The Europeans could have said: “We have a four-digit number of these tanks in Europe and we are now providing 200 to 300 of them in a joint effort by the 21 NATO countries that are in the EU.” This would have made Germany and Europe credible. This leaves the impression that we always have to wait for the Americans to say yes.
Scholz apparently made the Abrams tanks a prerequisite for deliveries of Leopards, so that Germany would not be the only one to suffer Putin’s anger if the worst came to the worst. Can you understand the reasoning behind this, that Washington might otherwise not be reliable?
I can understand them, but I don’t share them. First, I don’t think it is. Second, I don’t think 31 tanks from the US will change everything. We will always be faced with the question: are we united enough as the European Union to make a significant contribution to solving a conflict that is taking place on our continent?
If a nuclear escalation is practically impossible and all relevant partners have only been waiting for Berlin: Is Olaf Scholz too scared? Or does he lack a plan?
The Chancellor is difficult to understand. He still owes many explanations to the public, as he did last week. As a Union, we are not the only ones complaining about this. In politics you don’t have to say what you think every day, that’s right. But when it comes to such a crucial question, you have to find a way of communicating, both internally and externally, that people understand.
As a transatlantic, you certainly still have connections to Washington. Which interpretation is correct? Has Mr. Scholz annoyed the Americans with his attitude or has he gained respect by representing German interests?
What I hear is that there is probably a very trusting relationship between Scholz and US President Joe Biden. But I also hear that doubts are growing in Congress as to whether the Europeans – not just the Germans alone, the Europeans – are actually strong and determined enough to respond to challenges like this war. Both Republicans and Democrats are now very reticent in their unreserved support for the Europeans. Because they see that we are not doing what we should be doing. An example of this is that the defense budget of the Federal Republic of Germany will not increase from 2022 to 2023, but will instead decrease by 300 million euros; that we are further from the 2 percent target than ever; that the 100 billion euro special fund has not even started to be spent to this day. All of this is registered even more in Washington than in Germany.
Volker Petersen and Sebastian Huld spoke to Friedrich Merz
Read on Saturday at ntv.de how Merz looks back on his first year as CDU chairman and what he says about the migration debate and climate protection.