Köppel on Merz and Russia Warns of escalation

Feb 24, 2022

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.

Russia's February 24, 2022 attack on Ukraine is revisited in the retrieved accounts. Köppel calls the attack on a smaller neighbor and forcible border changes impermissible, says Putin underestimated the backlash and overestimated Russia, and nevertheless assigns causal responsibility to Western NATO expansion while warning against forcing a nuclear power to surrender. In a separate October 6 editorial return, he contrasts military punishment of the breach with accepting it and finding an agreement, while noting a similar peace preference on the far left. In her June 7, 2022 interview, Merkel calls the February 24 attack brutal, illegal and without justification. She reflects on the failure to build a preventive security architecture and explains her caution over the 2008 NATO bids while expressly rejecting that history as a justification for the invasion. Both condemn the attack; their causal and policy judgments remain distinct and attributed. Köppel's October 7 account again condemns Russia's invasion as an international-law breach, rejects an innocent-West framing and argues for compromise rather than forcing a nuclear power to surrender. His later retrospective invokes the 2014 Crimea dispute and what he describes as hostility toward Russian-speakers as causal background, with non-justification and present-day Ukraine qualifications. These are his interpretations, retained alongside Merkel's distinct assessment.