Europe cannot afford to hand off all conversations with Moscow to America
On a May afternoon in Berlin, Angela Merkel — the woman who shaped European diplomacy for sixteen years — stepped into the continent's most urgent debate and offered a warning: Europe is surrendering its voice at precisely the moment history demands it speak. Supporting Ukraine militarily and engaging Russia diplomatically are not contradictions, she argued, but twin obligations that Europe must hold together rather than outsource to Washington. Her words arrived not as nostalgia for an older order, but as a reckoning with what passivity costs.
- With Ukraine's military holding ground and peace negotiations becoming imaginable, the question of who speaks for Europe has grown dangerously urgent.
- Merkel's intervention at Re:Publica disrupted a quiet consensus — that military support was enough — by insisting that ceding all contact with Moscow to Trump amounts to a surrender of European agency.
- Her credibility cuts both ways: long accused of being too soft on Russia, she now makes the case for engagement with more precision, arguing deterrence and diplomacy must coexist, not compete.
- Across the continent, the ground is already shifting — Poland demanding answers on US troop deployments, Hungary navigating frozen EU funds, Latvia forming a new government — and American commitment feels less certain by the week.
- Europe faces a stark choice: remain a junior partner in American-led talks, or claim a seat at the table before the terms of any future peace are written without it.
Angela Merkel arrived at Berlin's Re:Publica conference in May and said something that cut against the prevailing mood: Europe is wasting its diplomatic reach. She had no reservations about military aid to Ukraine. But she warned that handing all conversations with Moscow to Donald Trump meant surrendering European agency at the worst possible moment.
The backdrop made her words land harder. Ukraine's military had been making real progress, stalling Russian advances — and paradoxically, that progress was opening space for eventual negotiations. Zelenskyy himself had suggested Europe needed to identify its own preferred negotiator. Merkel's message was that Europe should not wait passively for Washington to set the terms.
Her argument was disciplined: military deterrence and diplomatic engagement are not opposites. They are, as she put it, two sides of the same coin — a lesson drawn from the Cold War itself. The danger she identified was double: underestimating Putin while simultaneously losing faith in Europe's own capacity to act.
The criticism she has carried for years — that she made Germany dependent on Russian energy and failed to read the threat clearly — hung over the room. Yet she did not retreat. She made the case for engagement more carefully: yes to arms, yes to deterrence, and yes to keeping European diplomatic channels alive and independent.
Around her, the continent was already in motion. Poland was pressing Washington for clarity on troop deployments after a surprise cancellation. Hungary's new leadership was negotiating frozen EU funds. Latvia was forming a government after political crisis. Ukraine and Hungary were beginning talks on minority rights tied to EU membership. In this landscape of shifting alliances and uncertain American commitment, Merkel's call felt less like a former chancellor's opinion and more like a warning Europe could not afford to ignore.
Angela Merkel stepped into a live debate about Europe's future on a May afternoon in Berlin, and what she said cut against the grain of how many in the continent have been thinking about Russia. Speaking at the Re:Publica digital conference, the former German chancellor—who led Germany from 2005 to 2021—argued that the European Union was squandering its diplomatic reach. She supported military aid to Ukraine without hesitation. But she also insisted that Europe could not afford to hand off all conversations with Moscow to Donald Trump and the Americans.
The tension Merkel identified is real. Ukraine's military has made tangible progress in recent weeks, with Russian forces unable to advance significantly. That progress, paradoxically, creates space for negotiation—and raises the question of who will do the negotiating. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had suggested the night before that Europe needed to choose its own preferred negotiator for eventual peace talks. Merkel's intervention suggested Europe should not wait passively for Washington to decide the terms.
Her argument was straightforward but carried weight. Military deterrence and diplomatic engagement are not opposites, she said. They are two sides of the same coin, a lesson she drew from the Cold War itself. "Diplomacy has always been the other side of the coin, even during the cold war," she told the public broadcaster WDR. The risk, as she saw it, was that Europe would underestimate Putin while simultaneously losing confidence in itself. Relying solely on Trump to maintain contact with Russia meant ceding European agency at a moment when Europe needed to assert it.
Merkel's words carried particular weight because of who she is and what she has been accused of. For years, critics have said she was too accommodating toward Russia, that she made Germany dependent on cheap Russian energy and failed to see the threat clearly enough. She has lived with that criticism. Yet here she was, not retreating from the case for engagement but rather making it more sophisticated: yes to military support, yes to deterrence, but also yes to keeping diplomatic channels open and ensuring that Europe speaks for itself.
The timing mattered. Across Europe, governments were grappling with what comes next. Poland was demanding clarity from the United States about troop deployments after a surprise cancellation of a 4,000-soldier rotation. Hungary's new prime minister, Péter Magyar, was preparing talks with the EU about releasing frozen funds. Latvia was forming a new government after a political crisis. And Ukraine and Hungary were beginning negotiations on minority rights, a precondition for Ukraine's EU membership. In this landscape of shifting alignments and uncertain American commitment, Merkel's call for Europe to maintain its own diplomatic voice felt less like nostalgia and more like necessity.
What she did not say—but what hung in the air—was that Europe had been passive for too long. It had watched, waited, and deferred. Now, with Ukraine's military holding ground and the possibility of negotiations on the horizon, Europe faced a choice. It could remain a junior partner in American-led talks, or it could insist on a seat at the table and a voice in shaping what came next. Merkel was arguing for the latter, and her argument was finding an audience among those who believed Europe's future depended on it.
Citas Notables
Diplomacy has always been the other side of the coin, even during the cold war. Military deterrence plus diplomatic activity—that's what I think is important.— Angela Merkel
Underestimating Putin would be a mistake, even now. And not having any confidence in ourselves would be just as much of a mistake.— Angela Merkel
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does Merkel think Europe has been silent on Russia? Isn't military support enough?
She's saying military support is necessary but incomplete. If only Trump talks to Putin, Europe loses leverage and becomes a bystander in its own future. Diplomacy isn't weakness—it's how you shape the outcome.
But doesn't engaging diplomatically with Russia while supporting Ukraine send a mixed message?
Not if you're clear about your red lines. She's not suggesting appeasement. She's saying Europe should negotiate from strength, not from the sidelines. The Cold War worked because both sides talked even while armed.
Is she worried the US will make a deal that doesn't serve Europe?
Exactly. If Trump negotiates alone, he negotiates for American interests. Europe's interests—security, stability, Ukraine's sovereignty—might not align perfectly. Europe needs its own voice in the room.
Given her past criticism for being soft on Russia, isn't this risky for her reputation?
It is. But she's not retreating from that record—she's reframing it. She's saying that engagement and deterrence aren't opposites. That's a more mature argument than simply admitting she was wrong.
What does this mean practically? What should Europe actually do?
Start talking. Appoint negotiators. Build a European position before the Americans define the terms. Right now, Europe is reactive. Merkel is saying it needs to be proactive.