Merz says Ukraine 'fine' after missile pledge
- Friedrich Merz said on March 25 that Ukraine no longer needs German Taurus missiles, reversing a pledge he made before taking office. - Merz argued Ukraine’s own long-range weapons are “significantly more effective” than the small Taurus stock Germany could actually deliver. - The reversal matters because Taurus had become a symbol of whether Merz would be bolder than Olaf Scholz on Ukraine.
German long-range missiles were supposed to be one of the cleanest ways to tell Friedrich Merz apart from his predecessor. When he led the opposition, he pushed hard for sending Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. Then, on March 25, 2026, as chancellor, he said Ukraine basically does not need them anymore. That is why this blew up — not because Taurus suddenly became the decisive weapon of the war, but because Merz had used it as a marker of resolve and then walked away from it. (euractiv.com) ### What is Taurus, exactly? Taurus is a German-Swedish air-launched cruise missile with a long range and a reputation for hitting hardened targets. For Ukraine, the attraction was obvious — it could threaten bridges, command posts, and logistics nodes far behind Russian lines. For Berlin, the catch was alwa(euractiv.com)wehr stocks. (euractiv.com) ### Why did Merz back it before? Because while Olaf Scholz was chancellor, Taurus became shorthand for Germany’s broader caution on Ukraine. Merz, then in opposition, argued Berlin was moving too slowly and signaled he would be more willing to transfer the missiles. That made Taurus less a technical procurem(euractiv.com)nd less hesitant than Scholz’s. (euractiv.com) ### What did he say now? In the Bundestag on March 25, Merz said there was no longer any need to send Taurus because Ukraine now has domestically produced long-range weapons, built partly with German help, that are more effective than the relatively small number of missiles Germany could provide. He also sai(euractiv.com)enough operational Taurus missiles to spare. (euractiv.com) ### Is that a real policy shift? Yes — but not in the simple “for or against Ukraine” way critics frame it. The shift is from supplying a high-profile German system to financing Ukrainian production instead. Merz paired the Taurus rejection with a line that Ukraine is better armed than before but still has m(euractiv.com)lso pledged €11.5 billion in aid for 2026, including air-defense support. (euractiv.com) ### So why are people calling it a flip-flop? Because it is one, at least politically. Merz spent months benefiting from the contrast with Scholz, then adopted a version of the same restraint once he had to own the consequences. Turns out governing makes the stockpile question, alliance management, and escal(euractiv.com)with the image he built before entering office. (euractiv.com) ### Does this mean Germany is softening on Ukraine? Not really in budget terms, but maybe in signaling terms. Germany is still one of Kyiv’s biggest backers, and Merz’s government is arguing that supporting Ukrainian-made long-range systems is more useful than shipping a limited batch of Taurus missiles. But(euractiv.com)logical threshold. Merz just decided not to. (euractiv.com) ### Why does this matter beyond one missile? Because the story is really about credibility. A leader can change course if the facts change — and Merz says they did. But when a politician campaigns on “I would do the thing” and then governs with “the thing is no longer necessary,” people hear caution dressed (euractiv.com)gap. (euractiv.com) ### Bottom line? Merz is not abandoning Ukraine. He is redefining support away from a symbolic German missile transfer and toward funding Ukraine’s own strike capacity. But he also surrendered one of his clearest points of contrast with Scholz — and that is why this landed as more than a technical defense update. (euractiv.com)
