Köppel on Merz and Russia Warns of escalation

Oct 5

Roger Köppel recalls his Valdai exchange with Putin about Egon Bahr and the view that European peace requires cooperation with Russia. He then criticizes Merz's Kyiv appearance, reports another billion in support and weapons systems, and claims German support enables deeper strikes in Russia. He contrasts this with Scholz's restraint over Taurus and escalating the war. Reading Martin Jäger's Bundestag warning and Leipzig example, he argues that greater German involvement creates the danger rather than reducing Russian attacks; this is his causal interpretation. He criticizes the media and invokes Ukrainian Holocaust collaboration and Bandera commemoration as part of that argument, without documenting particular historical acts. He nevertheless calls Russia's attack on a smaller neighbor and forcible border changes impermissible, says Putin underestimated the backlash and overestimated Russia, and alleges Western double standards. His subsequent theses blame NATO expansion, say nuclear Russia cannot be forced to surrender safely, and also insist that defensive strength can restrain great powers. He warns of war on German soil, discusses Russia's claimed territorial and nuclear positions, hardliners and emotional resentment, and presents a speculative historical explanation for Russian attitudes toward Europe and China. He closes by arguing that Merz's Kyiv peace appeal is undermined by his accusatory rhetoric. These historical, causal and psychological claims, interpretations and forecasts remain attributed; the passage establishes no new attack, nuclear decision or accepted talks.

At the public Berlin oversight hearing, BND president Martin Jäger warns that confrontation with Russia has become more dangerous and that Germany risks violent conflict. BfV president Sinan Selen describes threats of sabotage and killings against transport, defense industry and military infrastructure, including possible civilian victims. In Tagesthemen's live clarification, Kornmeier says the chiefs nevertheless gave no indication that Russia plans an attack on NATO territory. These are attributed risk assessments, not a confirmed impending attack. Tagesschau's earlier October 5 package adds Martina Rosenberg calling the incidents concrete attacks on Germany, with an inaudible word left uncertain, and links Russia's targeting of Germany to German support for Ukraine. Jäger's Leipzig example and Selen's espionage/sabotage/assassination warning remain attributed official assessments. Tagesthemen's express absence of an indication of a planned NATO-territory attack remains intact. At the October 5 Berlin PKGr hearing, Jäger, Rosenberg and Selen describe concrete threats to Germany and Russian attempts to intimidate society and disrupt Ukraine support, transport, defence production and military infrastructure. Jäger calls the confrontation an undeclared shadow war; Selen describes expansion rather than replacement of espionage, sabotage, low-level agents and possible organized-crime methods. Rosenberg reports persistent military-site drone activity but says troops remain vigilant rather than demonstrably intimidated. In questioning, the chiefs advocate credible deterrence, public resilience and international cooperation. These are their attributed threat assessments and operational explanations, not confirmation of every suspected drone’s origin or an announced state of defence. In his October 6 commentary, Köppel quotes Jäger's hearing warning and Leipzig example but disputes the chiefs' Ukraine-support and deterrence rationale. He argues that greater German involvement produces the risk of war rather than reducing it. This opposing causal and policy interpretation does not independently establish responsibility for the Leipzig incident, erase the officials' qualifications or confirm an impending attack.