Köppel disputes Merz And EU Russia policy

Oct 4

Roger Köppel interprets Merz's Kyiv statement that German stability matters for Europe as a bid to make his continued rule indispensable. He cites a 17.5% CDU figure without identifying its poll and disputes EU politicians' use of Europe as a synonym for the EU. In an embedded account of von der Leyen's previous-day speech, he says she described soaring energy prices and reaffirmed cutting off Russian energy; he calls that policy self-defeating and blames the EU's confrontation with Russia for industrial energy costs. Returning to Merz, he argues that German support and deeper Ukrainian strikes make Germany less safe and favors diplomacy. His theory that Merz seeks personal vindication is expressly called unprovable and malicious. He attacks German media's portrayal of Putin as an imperialist, uses Crimea, Chechnya, Baltic minorities, Central Asia and Georgia as examples, and claims Western policy primarily created the Ukraine conflict while Putin pursued diplomacy into December 2021. On Crimea he disputes annexation, describes secession after what he calls an unconstitutional coup, and leaves the little green men's identity uncertain. These historical claims, security forecasts and political judgments remain attributed to Köppel; the complete intertwined commentary and energy-policy return are preserved.

In his October 4 Kyiv interview, Merz says European colleagues have urged him to keep Germany's government stable. After recent state-election setbacks, he promises to work for unity and continued progress the following week, describing stability in Germany as essential to the European Union. Asked whom he is addressing, he extends the appeal to everyone and praises Steinmeier's October 3 Bremen speech as a serious warning to preserve a stable democracy. The appeal announces a political commitment, not a new coalition agreement or resolved internal dispute. Köppel's October 7 commentary disputes the appeal's security rationale, interpreting Merz's claim of German stability's European importance as a bid to make his own continued rule indispensable. He argues that deeper German involvement increases risk and speculates about personal vindication, explicitly calling that psychological theory unprovable. This is an opposing assessment of the same Kyiv intervention, not a new coalition decision.