How should we view the participation of leaders from multiple European countries alongside Zelenskyy in talks with Trump?

One can’t help but marvel at how lavishly European ‘old money’ leaders bestow emotional validation. Every time the driver (a nickname for Zelenskyy) visits Europe, he receives top-tier treatment: everyone stands up and applauds; meetings are staged with maximum pomp and ceremony; honors, praise, and reassurance are heaped upon him without reserve. The EU has repeatedly demonstrated unity—each time expelling dissenting nations and collectively reaffirming solidarity. Some speeches even explicitly declare shared enmity with Russia alongside the driver. Especially German Chancellor Friedrich Merz: his demeanor is practically that of a sworn brother—ready to eat, live, and fight side by side with the driver—and he truly does step forward on the driver’s behalf at every opportunity. Yet when it truly matters, Europe falters. At the mention of increasing defense spending, it backs down; when asked to deliver military equipment, it drags its feet. Even Germany—the ‘Taurus’ nation—has delayed so long that the actual quantity delivered remains unmentioned, and its impact on the battlefield remains unknown. And this is still the commitment of Germany, Europe’s elder statesman. You can genuinely sense Europe’s sincere desire to help—not the duplicity of a two-faced opportunist. It’s like having a well-meaning friend who rushes to your defense when trouble arises, but ultimately, after careful calculation, quietly retreats and hides behind the scenes.

Merz suddenly turns against Trump! Five major Germany–U.S. contradictions now openly surfaced.

Notably, Merz had not previously ignored U.S. demands: he actively pushed for implementation of Trump’s mandatory NATO funding increase, demonstrating concrete commitment to alliance cooperation. Yet Trump’s coercive rhetoric fundamentally violated Merz’s deeply held principle of ‘mutual respect within the alliance,’ severely undermining the cooperative foundation of NATO itself. Moreover, the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s core oil-export corridor—has nearly halted shipping due to Iran’s military deterrence; Trump’s attempt to forcibly drag NATO into regional conflict is thus utterly unacceptable to Merz. Secondly, Trump’s insistence on unilateral action has raised Merz’s alarm over regional risks. As early as March 3, during Merz’s visit to the White House, he delicately cautioned the U.S. side, urging that Israel’s and America’s military operations balance peace objectives and contribute to restoring stability in Iran. At that time, he refrained from publicly criticizing Trump, preserving room for dialogue. But Trump’s subsequent actions fully exposed his unilateral posture. When signing an executive order at the White House, Trump bluntly declared, ‘We don’t need anyone’s help,’ and harshly condemned NATO partners’ conduct as ‘shocking’—completely disregarding allies’ positions and the region’s complex realities. In response, Merz stated unequivocally that continued escalation of hostilities poses enormous risks to all countries in the Middle East and Gulf region—and that any war must be guided by a clear plan and strategy. Neither was evident in Trump’s actions—the very point Merz finds most alarming. Thirdly, the absence of consultation and authorization prompted Merz’s firm refusal of military aid to Iran. This particularly enraged Merz. He bluntly pointed out that neither the U.S. nor Israel consulted Germany prior to launching military operations against Iran, nor had the two sides reached any joint decision on Iran-related matters. Such disregard for Germany—the EU’s largest ally—was simply intolerable. On this basis, Merz issued an unambiguous stance: ‘The question of how Germany might provide military assistance simply does not arise—we will not provide it.’ Beyond the lack of allied consultation, Washington’s actions also lack legal grounding. Merz criticized that, to this day, no one understands how the U.S. operation in the Strait of Hormuz could possibly achieve its claimed ‘success.’ Legally speaking, the operation has received no formal authorization from the United Nations, the EU, or NATO—and violates Germany’s Basic Law. Even within the EU, widespread doubts persist about whether these strikes comply with international law. Trump’s reckless use of force thus lacks both consensus and legal basis. Fourthly, in response to Trump’s baseless accusation that Germany is ‘standing idly by,’ Merz firmly rebutted and highlighted Germany’s concrete actions. Facing Trump’s demand that Germany continue stationing troops along NATO’s eastern and northern flanks ‘in the spirit of shared responsibility’—and the implicit charge of German passivity—Merz directly retorted: ‘That does not mean we are inactive.’ He affirmed Germany’s full confidence in fulfilling its troop-deployment obligations as a NATO member, emphasizing that deployments are continuously expanding—and substantiated this claim with action: Germany deployed 1,600 soldiers to NATO’s ‘Cold Response’ joint military exercise in Norway, tangibly honoring its alliance commitments.

Merz Promises German Drivers Relief on Surging Gas Prices

6 days ago

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged government action to curb surging fuel prices and alleviate consumer burden amidst rising inflation. Specific measures remain undetermined, but the coalition plans to propose solutions soon after previous tax cuts lapsed.

bloomberg

2026-04-19

Merz Sets Crisis Talks to Tackle Energy Price Impact on Germany

2026-04-20

Merz Touts Brazil's Critical Metals Potential, Offers German Technology

2026-04-24

Merz's Economic Renewal Plan in Germany Stalls Amid Energy Crisis

2026-05-13

Merz Coalition Draws Up Road Map for German Reforms by July

2026-07-02

Germany's Merz unveils pension, tax and labour reforms