Russia has launched a vehement criticism against Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor-designate and leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), for publicly endorsing the possible transfer of long-range Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. Merz’s comments were delivered in a televised interview shortly after a devastating Russian missile strike on the northeastern Ukrainian city of Sumy, which resulted in the deaths of at least 34 civilians—including children—and injured over 100 others. The Russian government, through its official channels, has interpreted Merz’s statements not as an act of solidarity with Ukraine or an appropriate response to alleged Russian war crimes, but as a deliberate provocation: an indication that Germany’s posture may shift toward a more offensive and escalatory role in the war. Russian officials described the remarks as evidence that Berlin does not seek peace but intends to escalate the conflict, warning that this perceived provocation could compel Russia to take countermeasures beyond the battlefield.
In multiple interviews, Merz characterized the Russian missile attack on Sumy as a war crime and emphasized the urgent need for Ukraine to adopt a proactive rather than purely reactive military strategy. He argued that Ukraine must acquire the means to “shape the course of events itself” instead of merely responding to Russian aggression. Central to this transformation, in Merz’s view, is the introduction of Taurus cruise missiles. Developed jointly by Germany and Sweden, the Taurus KEPD 350 is an air-launched, precision-guided missile boasting a range that exceeds 500 kilometers and the capability to penetrate hardened targets. Merz suggested that these German-manufactured missiles, which carry a conventional warhead, could be used to strike key logistical and infrastructural nodes—most notably the Kerch Bridge linking the Russian mainland to the annexed Crimean Peninsula. Such a strike, he argued, would disrupt Russian supply lines critical to sustaining the war.
Merz’s proposal represents a significant departure from the policy of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose administration consistently refrained from supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine due to fears of escalation and complications in implementing such a transfer. Scholz’s Social Democratic Party is now expected to join a coalition government under Merz’s leadership when he takes office on May 6, 2025, though it remains unclear whether Merz’s more hawkish stance will translate into actual policy without broader coalition agreement. He himself has stressed that Germany should not act unilaterally but rather coordinate with European allies—a position that resonates with countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, which have already provided Ukraine with advanced long-range missile systems.
The Kremlin’s reaction has been swift and hostile. Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov accused Merz of “warmongering” and claimed that European capitals are favoring an approach that prolongs the conflict rather than seeking meaningful peace negotiations. Russian media, long on alert for a possible Taurus missile transfer, now presents Merz’s comments as conclusive proof of NATO’s deepening commitment to what Moscow characterizes as a proxy war on its borders. Kremlin representatives warn that Merz’s specific mention of targets like the Kerch Bridge is a dangerous provocation, implying that Russia might respond to this perceived threat with measures affecting its broader security policy.
Internationally, the reaction to Merz’s proposal has been mixed. Several European allies, including the Netherlands and Poland, have expressed approval, seeing a possible deployment of Taurus missiles as a necessary step in strengthening Ukraine’s deterrence capabilities—especially as U.S. military assistance shows signs of slowing. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has also emphasized the importance of enhancing Ukraine’s ability to protect its civilian population amid ongoing Russian attacks. Analysts note that Taurus missiles could grant Ukraine the strategic depth it currently lacks, enabling the Ukrainian military to conduct precision strikes well behind Russian lines. However, integration of the Taurus system into Ukraine’s arsenal would be no simple task, requiring technical modifications to likely Soviet-era Su-24 aircraft, pilot and operator training, new target-acquisition systems, and a robust logistical infrastructure.
Germany’s stockpile of roughly 600 Taurus missiles complicates matters further. Though that number may appear large, the missiles constitute one of Germany’s few long-range, stand-off strike capabilities—a crucial element in NATO’s collective deterrence posture. Any large-scale transfer to Ukraine could diminish the Bundeswehr’s own capacity, while risking the capture or neutralization of these advanced systems. There are also rumors that Russian forces have developed specific countermeasures against Taurus-type missiles, raising the stakes should Merz’s plan be put into action.
On the domestic front, Merz faces serious headwinds. Public opinion in Germany remains largely skeptical of transferring Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Multiple polls—including one by ARD—show that a majority of Germans oppose the move, reflecting widespread concerns about escalating the war and drawing Germany into a deeper military confrontation with Russia. While some political factions favor increased military aid to Ukraine, this caution echoes throughout German society, which worries about both the moral and strategic implications of sending advanced offensive weaponry to an active conflict zone.
The controversy over Taurus missiles thus represents more than a technical debate over weapons systems; it is a crucible for Germany’s emerging foreign policy under Merz’s chancellorship. Breaking with Scholz’s era of measured restraint could reorient Berlin’s image as a military power within Europe and significantly influence the EU’s collective response to Russian aggression. Merz has framed his stance as a moral imperative, contending that President Vladimir Putin will respond only to demonstrations of strength, not to diplomatic overtures. Yet the path he proposes carries grave risks, from escalating the conflict to sowing internal discord in Germany and among NATO allies.
As Merz prepares to assume office on May 6, 2025, observers both within and beyond Germany will be watching closely to see whether he follows through on his support for Taurus missile deliveries. If he does, it may shift the balance of the war in Ukraine, signaling a bolder European approach in backing Kyiv. If he retreats in the face of domestic or coalition pressures, the moment could pass without altering Germany’s long-standing caution. In either case, the future of these 600-odd missiles—and the role they might play—now stands as a pivotal test of Germany’s resolve, the unity of its new coalition government, and the resilience of the West’s strategy in the most volatile military crisis on the European continent since the end of the Cold War.
Sources for Merz’s position have been reported by international outlets, including The Kyiv Independent, which pointed out his condemnation of the Sumy attack as a war crime and his insistence on a coordinated European response. As Europe grapples with how best to aid Ukraine while avoiding a direct clash with Russia, Merz’s statements have become a flashpoint for broader debates on deterrence, escalation, and the limits of Western unity. The question of whether to send Taurus cruise missiles is no mere matter of hardware; it symbolizes the delicate balancing act facing Germany and its allies as they determine how far they are willing to go in supporting Ukraine—and how much risk they are prepared to shoulder—in a conflict that shows little sign of abating.
Gros News 
Leave a comment