Former German Prime Minister Angela Merkel recently rarely received an interview with the Hungarian "Guerra" newspaper, a speech that left the whole of Europe somewhat unstable, she said directly, the outbreak of the conflict in Russia, the four countries of Eastern Europe, mainly the three countries of Poland and the Baltics, are hard to blame.
This promptly sparked a wave of wind in European politics, after all, it was the old general who was once known as the "European stone" who spoke about the Russian-Ukrainian issue for the first time after leaving the politics two years.
She did not simply recall the past, but with a sense of seriousness and directness, pointing to the old wound that Europe most wanted to touch: missing the best opportunity to stop the war.
not slightly
Merkel's words are not a "horrifying secret", but her identity and timing, making this criticism especially sharp, she recalls in an interview that as early as 2021, she and French President Macron had noticed the Russian military moves, and there was concern in the heart.
The two men proposed that an emergency consultation mechanism should be launched within the EU to unify its position on Russia in advance and try to use diplomatic means to stabilize the situation. However, the proposal was quickly opposed by Poland and the three Baltic countries. Merkel concluded that Europe missed a window into possible avoidance of war.
Her logic was not complicated, and the European Union at that time was no longer a part of the Western camp of the Cold War period, but a composition of 27 countries with frequent disagreements.
Merkel believes that if a consensus could be reached at that time, even if it was just to release a unified diplomatic signal to Putin, the war may not evolve to today, but because of the internal opinions split, it eventually evolved into a "sickness medicine": looking at the tension in Russian-Ukrainian relations, but no one really dealt with it, but each said things, mistaken opportunity.
Of course, the reasons why Eastern European countries opposed, is not without reason, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, deeply rooted in Russia, these countries, in the past, had been ruled by the Soviet Union, are very allergic to the word "jamming".
They fear that once the old path of “contact-retreat” is repeated, it is likely that the history will repeat, so in their view, Merkel’s proposal is more like a “delay tactic” than a solution to the problem.
But this also exposes the EU's weakness in major security decisions: the lack of a strong unified voice. Merkel's remarks are ostensibly criticizing the four Eastern European countries, but are actually reminding the whole of Europe: When internal unity is not clear and strategic goals are unclear, even if you have clairvoyance, it will be difficult to stop a huge disaster.
She knows Putin.
The relationship between Merkel and Putin has always been the subject of outsiders, a fluent Russian-speaking, East German-born German prime minister, a former KGB agent, a Russian president careful of the Western world, the two have fought in the power field for a whole 16 years.
Merkel even mentioned Putin more frequently in her memoirs than many allies. This "special understanding" also gave her an intuitive judgment of Putin's behavior style that is beyond ordinary people's reach.
She has always adhered to the route towards Russia "to promote transformation by contact", the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is the iconic project that she has promoted in her mandate, in the opinion of many Eastern Europeans, it is simply sending bullets to Putin.
But Merkel’s idea is more realistic: you can’t erase Russia from the map, you have to deal with it, especially on the Eurasian continent, a triple crossroads of energy, security and geopolitics, without talk, with sanctions and military deterrence alone, you can’t go far.
In his national speech before the war, Putin repeatedly mentioned NATO's eastward expansion pressure. Merkel obviously understood the "subtext": Russia is not simply trying to attack Ukraine, but is warning the entire West that its "strategic red line" has been stepped on.
Merkel’s reaction was not to support Putin, but to advocate a calm diplomatic approach to these concerns, her sublime slogan being: You don’t necessarily identify with the logic of your opponent, but you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
Outside people have questioned her “speaking for Putin,” and even hidden suspicions of “singing springs,” but if you really understand Merkel’s style, you know that what she most resent is emotional decision making.
From her point of view, this is not an excuse for Putin, but a way for Europe, and she is reluctant to see Europe engage in a possible long-lasting war without a full consideration and completely block the road to diplomacy.
heavy losses
Merkel's views resonate widely because the conflict has caused Europe to suffer enough, especially Germany. Germany, which once relied on Russian energy, now has to import liquefied natural gas at high prices, and industrial costs have soared.
According to data from the German Federal Statistical Office, in July this year, new industrial orders in Germany fell by 2.9% month-on-month, falling for several months in a row. Many economic research institutions have also lowered their economic growth forecasts for Germany in 2025. Merkel may have already expected it. The cost of decoupling is not only the number on the books, but also the break in the stability of the entire industrial chain.
On the security, Europe is also increasingly dependent on the United States, the military aid to Ukraine has almost dried out its arms inventories, Germany, France, Italy and other countries had also thought to build "Europe's defense autonomy", but now found that even their own missile inventories must depend on the United States to supply.
Merkel's criticism was not purely "hindsight", but a calm question: Is it all worth it? Three years have passed, the war in Ukraine has not been extinguished, the European economy has been declining one after another, security still depends on NATO to support, and internal opinions are divided. Is this what we wanted at the beginning?
What she said was clear: Europe can’t always be caught in the nose by the external agenda, and aid is not insignificant, but without clear strategic goals and withdrawal mechanisms, Europe will only fall into the dungeon of “political inertia.”
Rather than prolonging war, it is better to think seriously about the possibility of a political solution, even if the path is difficult, but more promising than an indefinite conflict.
Merkel's "return to the Jianghu" this time is neither to turn over old scores nor to regain the helm, but to sound the alarm for Europe. She pointed out a fact that she didn't want to be mentioned in an almost cold tone.
Europe’s pre-crisis strategic judgment and internal coordination failed, she saw the old blemishes of Europe’s “separate policy” and pointed to a lack of long-term vision for Russia’s policy.
Her appearance, not to generate more controversy, but to spark thought, is that Europe wants to truly master its own future, not just by slogans, but more by political wisdom, internal unity and strategic determination, the war will not stop with a word, but if even reflection does not start, the future will only be harder.
Today's Europe is standing at a crossroads. On the one hand, there is the inertia to continue walking, and on the other hand, there is the courage to look back. Merkel's voice may not be as powerful as before.
But her vision and intuition are still worth listening, not to tell Europe what to do, but to remind Europe not to miss the next opportunity to avoid conflict.
Source of information:
Merkel, four Eastern European countries blasted the pot 2025-10-07 18:46· Observer Network