By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a parliamentary debate, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that any peace agreement in Ukraine must have the explicit consent of both Ukraine and European countries to be considered legitimate. He emphasized that Europe is a sovereign player and should not be sidelined in negotiations. Merz stated that Germany will increase its financial support for Ukraine to €11.5 billion by 2026 and endorsed using frozen Russian assets to fund the country’s defense and reconstruction. The Chancellor underscored the importance of ensuring Russia does not achieve a successful outcome, highlighting the country’s commitment to supporting Ukraine for as long as needed.
Read the original article here
German Chancellor Merz: The West Won’t Let Putin Dictate Ukraine’s Future
It seems like there’s a widespread feeling that the West, despite pronouncements to the contrary, might not be doing enough to prevent Putin from controlling Ukraine’s destiny. There’s a lot of talk, especially around Germany, about standing firm, but the actions – or lack thereof – often tell a different story.
One significant point of contention is the supply of advanced weaponry, like the Taurus cruise missiles. The question is, are they being sent? Are they being sent in sufficient numbers? And why the hesitation? There was a lot of pre-election talk about these missiles, but the reality after taking office appears to be more cautious. This isn’t just about Germany, either. It reflects a broader reluctance in the West to take decisive action.
The core of the problem is a perceived gap between rhetoric and action. The West, and particularly Europe, has a sizable military force. Why not deploy it? Why isn’t the EU, with its 1.6 million active military personnel, taking a more direct role? The current approach, it’s argued, risks allowing Russia to dictate the terms of the war and its eventual outcome.
There’s also the uncomfortable reality that while the West supports Ukraine financially and with weapons, Russia is still gaining ground, controlling territory. In the brutal logic of war, the side with the advantage often dictates the terms of any potential resolution. This raises a crucial question: is the West simply prolonging the conflict, which some suggest might be a hidden objective? The ongoing war provides financial benefits for the military-industrial complex and allows Europe to posture on the world stage, but does it really serve Ukraine’s interests?
The West’s response, some feel, lacks teeth. Despite sanctions and financial aid, Russia hasn’t been significantly deterred. There’s a call for stronger action, for the West to “make them pay” for their actions. The current situation, with Western airspace vulnerable to Russian drones, is seen as a sign of weakness.
The debate also touches on the nature of European leadership. Some question the resolve of current leaders, contrasting it with historical periods of greater assertiveness. The perceived weakness is especially frustrating when the stakes are so high, and there is a sense of betrayal. The suggestion that some leaders are more concerned with appearing to do good rather than actually making a difference doesn’t sit well.
The critics highlight the reluctance to put “boots on the ground” and the continued reliance on indirect aid. The promise of continued support “for as long as necessary” rings hollow, given the lack of decisive action. The EU, they argue, needs to “shit or get off the pot” and start acting instead of just making declarations.
Furthermore, the discussion goes into the nature of the aid and how the lack of a unified approach is limiting their effect. Russia has support from allies, but Ukraine is largely left to fight alone.
One of the central arguments revolves around the idea that the West’s current approach isn’t working. It’s suggested that the focus on “indirect” aid, without a willingness to take more substantial risks, is insufficient. The situation demands more decisive action, more concrete support, if Putin is to be truly prevented from dictating Ukraine’s future.
There is a sense that the current efforts are just delaying the inevitable. The aid is a temporary fix, not a lasting solution, and the war is still going on. The call for the EU to act is also made in order to prevent an unwanted escalation of war.
The conversation ultimately comes down to a fundamental question: is the West truly committed to preventing Putin from dictating Ukraine’s future? The answer, at this point, remains elusive. The current strategy may not be effective. The West needs to decide, with action, and the people need to choose between war or peace.