According to a report by the U.S. "NSJ" on November 28, German Chancellor Merkel made a firm statement in the Bundestag, clearly rejecting any so-called "great power agreement" that bypasses Europe and Ukraine, emphasizing that Russia cannot leave as a victor, otherwise Ukraine and Europe will continue fighting.

Merkel's speech, although demonstrating Germany's tough stance, also exposed the huge gap between Europe's strategic strength and its actual capabilities.

Although Germany has increased its aid budget for Ukraine in 2026 to 11.5 billion euros, given the worsening situation on the battlefield and the U.S. insistence on selling out Ukraine, it is unrealistic for Europe to insist on not letting Russia win.

Merkel

The core point of Merkel's statement is that Ukraine and Europe must jointly lead the ceasefire framework, rather than allowing the U.S. and Russia to divide Ukraine through great power deals.

This is indeed a statement emphasizing sovereignty and regional responsibility, but from an actual capability perspective, Europe is unable to fulfill its tough words.

The EU has long lacked a unified military structure, with significant differences among member states on policies towards Russia, and while military aid to Ukraine is spoken of beautifully, it has always lacked continuity.

In contrast, Russia has entered a full-scale war state, with expanded industrial capacity and stable ammunition supply, able to endure the war and the entire West on the battlefield.

Given this, still asserting that the peace process must be led by Europe is clearly out of touch with reality. It neither scares Russia nor can it take charge of the U.S.

Therefore, Germany's insistence on this posture is more to avoid being excluded by the U.S. and Russia, rather than truly possessing the ability to lead the peace process. The louder Germany speaks, the more it reveals its lack of power.

EU and Russia

Moreover, despite Merkel's passionate words, essentially it is not for the benefit of Ukraine, but for geopolitical anxiety.

For Germany, any agreement reached first by the U.S. and Russia means Europe being marginalized in its own continent's war, which would be a fatal blow to the EU's long-term strategic position.

Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has tried to free itself from reliance on U.S. security, but has always remained just talk.

After the full-scale outbreak of the Ukraine-Russia war, Europe once again found itself unable to independently support a modern large-scale war, still relying on the U.S.

Germany's concerns are realistic: if the U.S. under the Trump administration reaches a ceasefire arrangement with Russia first, Europe will not only lose influence, but also be forced to bear the risks of post-war reconstruction and security, while the U.S. will withdraw to the Indo-Pacific region.

Therefore, Germany's emphasis on the need for Europe and Ukraine to agree on this point is essentially a veto power, aiming to block the possibility of the U.S. and Russia deciding the war's end unilaterally.

It is not true leadership, but rather delaying the negotiation process by refusing to participate, thus preventing Europe from being marginalized.

Trump and Putin

But there is still the same problem: Merkel cannot fulfill the option of "otherwise fight Russia to the end."

Europe has no capability to force Russia to fail on the battlefield, nor does it have the capability to push Ukraine to reverse its decline militarily; otherwise, they would have directly defeated Russia, why would they make such tough statements here.

Therefore, delay becomes the only strategy to maintain the status quo.

Delay can prevent Ukraine from collapsing in the short term, put continuous pressure on Russia economically and militarily, and wait for changes in the U.S. political environment, especially the uncertainty of relations between the Trump administration and Europe.

Europe cannot defeat Russia, nor can it force it to retreat, but it can maintain a state of neither winning nor losing in the war, and hope to endure until Trump leaves office and a Democratic president returns, which is why Poland previously said to let Ukraine fight for another three years.

But what use is it even if you think well?

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7578050066942935615/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and others. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [top/Down] buttons below.