G

ermany is set to push through an €83 billion rearmament drive that heavily favors European defense companies, with only a small fraction of contracts going to U.S. weapons makers, according to procurement documents obtained by POLITICO.

The plan, drawn up for the Bundestag’s budget committee, details 154 major defense contracts scheduled between September 2025 and December 2026. Of that total, just €6.8 billion — about 8 percent — is earmarked for U.S.-made equipment, a sharp break from Berlin’s recent status as one of Washington’s most reliable arms customers.

European focus

The largest projects on the list are dominated by European industry. Topping the bill is the €26 billion F-127 frigate program, to be led by German naval giant ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). Another €4 billion is allocated for Eurofighter Tranche 5 jets built by Airbus, BAE Systems, and Leonardo, with €1.9 billion more for radar upgrades.

The army stands to receive €3.4 billion for new Boxer armored vehicles produced by Rheinmetall and KNDS, alongside €3.8 billion for a new wheeled tank destroyer. Additional funding will go to Taurus cruise missile modernization, IRIS-T SLM air defense systems, and a troubled “Eurodrone” project, which still requires significant development.

By contrast, U.S.-made systems appear only sparingly: €150 million for Boeing torpedoes linked to the P-8A patrol aircraft and €5.1 billion for Raytheon’s Patriot missile batteries, supplemented by smaller missile and radio packages.

Shift from Washington

The figures mark a striking pivot. Between 2020 and 2024, Germany approved more than $17 billion in U.S. foreign military sales, peaking at $13.9 billion in 2023 amid heightened demand following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That spree briefly made Berlin one of the top buyers of American arms worldwide.

Now, Berlin is signaling a longer-term bet on European strategic autonomy. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, NATO’s European members sourced 64 percent of their arms from the U.S. in recent years. Washington — and particularly President Donald Trump — has urged allies to keep buying American.

In July, Trump struck a trade deal with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, touting “hundreds of billions” in future European purchases of U.S. defense equipment. A joint statement promised that the EU would “substantially increase procurement” from the U.S., with American government support.

But defense spending remains in the hands of national governments, and Germany’s procurement plan undercuts that pledge.

Modernization and politics

The plan highlights Germany’s intent to upgrade across all services, from naval frigates and submarine warfare systems to drones, trucks, radios, and ammunition. Some politically sensitive projects are also included, such as €2.3 billion for Taurus cruise missile modernization — under pressure from Ukraine, but still withheld from direct transfer.

For Chancellor Friedrich Merz, the program balances Germany’s NATO commitments with an industrial strategy to bolster Europe’s defense sector. Yet the sidelining of U.S. suppliers could strain Berlin’s relationship with Washington, just as NATO grapples with Russian provocations in the Baltic and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Analysts say the document illustrates a growing divide: Europe doubling down on self-reliance while Trump’s America demands loyalty to U.S. arms exports. Whether that divergence deepens may depend on how Berlin manages both its alliances and its defense industry priorities in the coming years.

(Source: Politico)

T

he German coalition government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz for the first time has uncovered a national security strategy. The strategy described Russia as the biggest security threat “for the foreseeable future,” and China as “simultaneously a partner, competitor and systemic rival.” The national security strategy aims to spend at least 2% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, starting next year, in line with the ceiling set by NATO.

On June 14, the German government announced that it broke away from the policy of “change through trade” on which German chancellors counted for years, especially Gerhard Schroeder, Angela Merkel, and Willy Brandt, to deal with countries with authoritarian regimes, to bring about change, but especially to enable industrial Germany to build up its strength as Europe’s largest economy (despite having one of the largest U.S. bases).

At a press conference in Berlin, Scholz summarized Germany’s new national security strategy, which was delayed for more than a year, by saying that Germany is “strong,” noting that it wants to have a security strategy based on three foundations: integration, flexibility, and sustainability.

The strategy suggests that Germany would play a more active role in Europe, after decades of focusing on economic investments and dependence on the U.S. and NATO for security.

Three pillars

The new national security strategy is based on three pillars.

Active defense: A commitment to high military spending, including reaching NATO’s goal of 2% of GDP on defense, and focusing on deterrence.

Flexibility: This goal concerns Germany and its allies, and focuses on protecting their values, reducing economic dependency, deterring and defeating cyberattacks, and defending the UN Charter and rule of law.

Sustainability: A commitment to tackling issues such as climate change, and energy and food crises.

Schultz noted that it was important for Berlin to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine with partners, including the postwar period, considering that “it is clear the Russian president wants to annex parts of the Russian backyard,” naming Ukraine and Belarus.

Russia and China

It is true that the national security strategy only mentions Russia and China by name, but a further reading indicates that it reflects a shift that began some time ago in the priorities of German security policy from combating terrorism, military interventions, and sending the German army on external missions towards focusing on combating terrorism and preventing conflicts between countries.

The 80-page document addresses Germany’s infrastructure, calling for the need to “reduce unilateral dependence on energy and raw material supplies by diversifying sources,” in reference to Germany’s dependence on Russian energy.

The German strategy pointed towards “the need to continue to monitor investments in order to avoid dependence on a specific party in the basic infrastructure, and to confront the issue of sensitive technology transfer.”

The German government said it would also develop a strategy to strengthen Germany’s ability to counter hybrid threats, including cyber-threats, which would require strengthening the capabilities of intelligence services.

In addition, the German national security document contained several references to security threats posed by climate change such as famine, disease, and conflict, as well as extreme weather conditions and damage to Germany’s critical infrastructure.

It seems that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has changed Germany’s security calculations, pushing it to adopt a more proactive strategy that enables Berlin to defend itself. It has also been revealed that Germany has revised its policy of dependence on Russia for energy and is showing more caution towards China while also continuing to engage with the latter.

The inflation rate in Germany has reached 7.3 percent, the highest level in forty years. Although an increase in inflation was expected, this number has surprised most economists. The Russia-Ukraine war has further increased the already rising energy prices and exacerbated the inflation. Consumer prices rose by 7.3 percent in March 2022 compared to March 2021. While the inflation rate was 4.9 percent in January and 5.1 percent in February of this year, the current inflation rate of 7.3 percent shows a significant increase.

The German Council of Economic Experts (Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Wirtschaftsweisen) expects a record inflation of 6.1 percent for 2022. This would be the highest rate since reunification. By comparison, last year’s inflation was 3.1 percent. Now the coalition government in Germany is discussing how to pursue its Russia policy that has a significant impact on the economy, especially in the energy sector.

Disagreement among economists

Not only Germany is struggling with economic difficulties, but the whole euro zone is affected by the Russia-Ukraine war. The European Central Bank might raise interest rates, but it wants to keep insisting on its loose monetary policy. Michael Heise, chief economist at HQ Trust, describes the situation, as follows: “For European monetary policy, the situation is getting more difficult from week to week. High inflation and further disruptions in production processes threaten to slow economic growth to zero.”

The so-called Wirtschaftsweisen (economic experts), who advise the German government on economic issues, have set their forecast for economic growth in Germany’s gross domestic product at 1.8 percent for 2022, significantly lowering expectations.

Other economists warn against a complete halt to imports of Russian energy, as inflation could otherwise rise to as much as 10 percent. Institute for Economic Research President Marcel Fratzscher claims that “some companies would probably have to stop production and put more people on short-time work.”

Other economists, in turn, claim that an import freeze from Russia is a distinct possibility. For the German economy, this would pose a major challenge, but it would not be impossible. Economist Veronika Grimm has pointed out that the German government should not only pay attention to economic developments, but also draw on moral and ethical values.

According to the YouGov survey conducted in March, 15.2 percent of the German population can no longer pay their living expenses. The respondents also stated that their situation was currently threatening their very existence. In January, this rate was 11 percent.

23.6 percent of people with a net income of at least 2,500 euros said they were no longer able to meet regular expenses because prices were rising disproportionately to wages. In January, this figure was only 17 percent.

The German coalition government had announced a relief package to offset rising prices. Among other things, the traffic light coalition has decided to reduce the energy tax for three months to make gasoline and diesel cheaper. In addition, employees will receive a one-time energy allowance of 300 euros on their gross salary and families will receive a 100-euro bonus per child on their child allowance. The relief package adopted for the month of February has cost the German government 16 billion euros.

According to the YouGov survey, 53.4 percent of respondents said they are very worried about rising prices of goods and services. Three months ago, the figure was 44 percent. Therefore, 61.3 percent would like to receive further support from the state. In their view, the federal government’s relief package is not enough to mitigate the effects of inflation.

Uncertain future

The Russia-Ukraine war has been very damaging to the German economy. Currently, the voices are not yet so loud due to the current economic situation. Still the Russia-Ukraine war dominates the political discourse. However, Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner is already warning that Germany is facing hard times.

“The Ukraine war is making us all poorer. I have serious concerns about economic development. Growth is declining, prices are hiking. In the long term, we will have to lay new foundations for prosperity. Germany must renew its growth model of a social and ecological market economy,” he said.

Lindner’s statement and the YouGov survey show that Germany is sailing towards an economically unstable and uncertain future. Until the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic, in recent years, the German people had been spoiled by strong economic growth.

While Germany was still able to manage the pandemic confidently, the Russia-Ukraine war has revealed the limits of the German economy. Only the future can tell to what extent the fluctuations in the German economy will affect German domestic policies and foreign politics.

The Russia-Ukraine war marks a historic turn in German foreign and security policy. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has announced that Germany wants to invest €100 billion in rearming the military. Almost all parties in the Bundestag support this historic decision. While the AfD remains passive, the Left Party is divided.

One of the first consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine for Germany and for its new Ukraine policy was the cancellation of the very important and, at the same time, very controversial Nord Stream 2 project. Manuela Schwesig of the SPD, head of the government of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (MV), announced her intention to dissolve the Stiftung Klima- und Umweltschutz MV (MV Climate and Environmental Protection Foundation).

The foundation originally served to protect the Nord Stream 2 project from American sanctions. Several investors such as Shell and the Austrian energy company OMV have also withdrawn from the project. The German company Uniper estimates a loss of €900 million. The German environmental aid organization Deutsche Umwelthilfe even speaks of the Nord Stream 2 project being terminated definitely. The pipeline, which cost billions, will go down as one of Europe’s biggest misinvestments.

Another figure affected by the termination of the Nord Stream 2 project is former SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. He was the main initiator of the gas pipeline by actively lobbying for it. Now the Taxpayers’ Association is calling on Chancellor Scholz to confiscate Schröder’s office equipment in Berlin.

Schröder’s long-time office manager and speechwriter Albrecht Funk ended his co-operation employment with Schröder after more than 20 years of working together.

The football club BVB Dortmund has withdrawn Schröder’s honorary membership and Hannover 96 is considering kicking the former chancellor out. The pressure exerted on Schröder at different levels shows that Schröder’s distancing himself from Putin is of high importance in Germany.

Schröder is the best-known German politician who maintains a good relationship with Putin. If Schröder were to step down and end his relations with Putin, Germany and Russia would lose a trustworthy mediator in a possible diplomatic solution.

How other German parties responded

While there is a general consensus within the coalition government on Germany’s rearmament, and the largest opposition parties (CDU/CSU) also support this decision, reactions differ among the marginal parties AfD and Left Party. CDU foreign policy expert Norbert Röttgen praised Chancellor Scholz’s decision to increase Germany’s armament and said he was positively surprised.

The AfD, on the other hand, which is known for its close ties to Russia, for the time is internally discussing its future attitude towards Russia. Several sections in the party are calling for a change in the course of the AfD’s policy on Russia. AfD MP Joachim Wundrak, for example, is in favor of sanctions against Russia, but they should not be so far reaching as to harm Germany.

The AfD parliamentary group leader Alice Weidel calls Russia’s invasion illegal under international law, but rejects arms deliveries to Ukraine and favors a diplomatic solution between Russia and Ukraine.

In the Left Party, the situation looks much more complicated. Here there is an open conflict between the foreign policy spokesperson Gregor Gysi and the former parliamentary group leader Sahra Wagenknecht. Wagenknecht and six other Left Party MPs had issued a statement categorically rejecting German arms deliveries to Ukraine and imposing economic sanctions against Russia. Gysi clearly criticizes Wagenknecht and says that her statement would in effect deny Ukraine’s right of self-defense.

Gysi accuses Wagenknecht of lack of emotion and empathy for the Ukrainian people, and at the same time questions the current course of the Left Party. Wagenknecht responds to Gysi’s accusations, calling his statements defamation of character and stating that she holds sympathy for the Ukrainian dead and injured. Wagenknecht, however, continues to stand by her position and emphasizes the possibility of resolving the war diplomatically.

Russia-Ukraine impact on German politics

The developments in the Russia-Ukraine war have influenced several levels of German politics. Germany’s rearmament, the sanctions against Russia, the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 project and its consequences for Gerhard Schröder, and the diverging positions between and within political parties show the importance of the relationship between Germany and Russia.

The Russia-Ukraine war will not only change Germany’s attitude towards Russia but will also have far-reaching consequences for German foreign and security understanding. Germany’s discourse on military issues will be conducted differently in the future.

The fact that this change is taking place at a time when pacifist parties are in government can be seen as a paradox; however, this change can occur specifically because no opposition party of significant size is objecting to German rearmament and, as a result, the move is not up for debate.

Shortly before officially handing over her office to Olaf Scholz, former German chancellor Angela Merkel approved an arms deal that caused much criticism. Since the start of the year and by November 29, 2021, Germany had exported weapons and armaments worth €0.18 billion. With the approval of the arms deal shortly before the government change, the value of arms exports rose to €9.04 billion which means that Germany broke its 2019 record of €8.015 billion worth of arms exports.

Furthermore, Germany exported 65.8 percent of its arms and armaments to third countries (non-EU states) in 2021. Last year, the percentage of arms exports to third countries was 50.1; €1.6 billion worth of arms exports were reported to have been exported to EU countries, and €1.5 billion to NATO members and states on an equal level with the alliance. While €4 billion worth of weapons were exported, €5 billion worth of military equipment was exported.

The export of military equipment worth €4.34 billion to Egypt was approved. This means that almost half of the approved arms deals were destined for Egypt, making it by far the largest destination for German arms exports. It was announced that the export of three warships and 16 air defense systems to Egypt was approved on December 7, 2021.

Criticism from the left spectrum

The approved arms deals were criticized by the German Left Party and the Greens. Statistics on German arms exports from 2021 were published by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action upon the request of Left Party politician Sevim Dağdelen. Dağdelen criticized Chancellor Scholz and the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) based on the statistics records.

The German government is preparing to set certain criteria for approving and rejecting arms export deals.

The SPD was in government with the CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) for the last two legislative terms (2013-2021). Dağdelen criticized the fact that despite the arms exports to dictatorships, the SPD did not have to face any consequences and even won the election, and called Scholz a “crook” (Gaunerstück).

The Greens are now in government and are mainly responsible for arms exports. They, too, criticized Merkel’s approved arms deals. In response, Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock announced that the German government wants to control arms exports better in the future. To this end, the German government is preparing to set certain criteria for approving and rejecting arms export deals.

“Traffic light coalition” must maintain its credibility

After the arms deal was announced, the current German government is under pressure. It is expected that especially the SPD and the Greens will not view the decision of German arms exports the same way. The SPD sees Germany as a trading state and wants to continue with arms exports without any restrictions, as it is one of the country’s most important sources of revenue. The Greens, on the other hand, want to review arms export deals in light of human rights issues. It is a matter of question now whether realpolitik or value-based politics will win.

In May 2021, the current minister of economic affairs and climate action and Green politician Robert Habeck said that the German government should supply weapons to Ukraine.

Interestingly, statements by the Greens and their actual position do not match in some cases. In May 2021, the current minister of economic affairs and climate action and Green politician Robert Habeck said that the German government should supply weapons to Ukraine. Habeck’s statement contradicted those of Baerbock, who is against arms deliveries to Ukraine.

The Greens are under pressure mainly because, as a party, they are a pacifist one; however, their credibility was lost after the Kosovo War in 1999. At that time, the Greens were in government and were responsible for Germany becoming actively involved in a war for the first time since World War II. Then, realpolitik had prevailed over value-based politics.

Double standards?

Germany’s approved arms deals to third countries where human rights are violated shows a lack of credibility. While Germany and France outwardly pioneer defending human rights, they cause further human rights violations by allowing arms exports to dictatorships. Morality and political ethics are only of discursive value, with no essential value – and perhaps even a weapon to use against “others.”

Statements by CDU politician Kiesenwetter about the competition with China and Russia summarize this paradox quite well, showing that moral values are only important in domestic politics, but in international affairs, Germany acts no differently than authoritarian regimes like the aforementioned two countries.

The silence of the SPD and Olaf Scholz illustrate that the German federal government wants to continue this policy. The Greens will appear to oppose it in their statements; however, their lack of credibility and effectiveness will impede them from having any  real say on the issue. In the end, it seems highly likely that Germany will continue its current unchecked policy of arms exports.

The elections held in Germany on September 26, 2021, produced interesting results. The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) increased its votes by 1.8% to become the first party after nearly 23 years, while Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s Christian democratic alliance of two political parties – the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) and the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU) – lost 7.7% of votes with Armin Laschet and came in second position.

No party could get enough votes to form a single party government. Compared with the 2017 elections, the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD) received only 10.3%, a drop of 2.3% compared to 2017. Another significant change was the withdrawal from political life of Angela Merkel who had been Germany’s chancellor uninterruptedly since 2005.

Angela Merkel: “We can do this”

Chancellor Merkel led not only Germany but Europe as a whole in the fight against the Euro crisis, the so-called immigration crisis, Brexit, and COVID-19. In particular, her slogan “We can do this” (Wir schaffen das), which she put forward on August 31, 2015 during the European “migrant crisis”, was later used in many other crises.

This concept, also known as “welcoming culture” (Willkommenskultur), became a concept that presented Germany’s positive attitude towards immigrants, especially in the eyes of politicians and public institutions. However, politics in Germany did not evolve as optimistically as the slogan would have one believe: the AfD, a new political party, used Merkel’s slogan against her to rise in politics.

The rapid rise and fall of the AfD

The AfD was established in 2013 with anti-Muslim and anti-immigration policies and increased in popularity rapidly. In 2015, intense immigration to Europe from Middle Eastern countries, primarily Syria, and Germany’s reception of approximately 1.2 million immigrants in 2015 and 2016, caused the AfD to find quick social support and to rise in the 2017 elections. This rise started to decline before reaching high levels.

Given the legacy of WW II, it was unknown whether support for the AfD, Germany’s first far-right party in recent times, would continue given the fact that violations of Muslims’ rights and attacks against Muslims, Islamic organizations, and foreigners have been increasing across the country. The AfD had received 4.7% of the votes in 2013, and it turned the 2015 immigration crisis into an opportunity and received 12.6% of the votes in the 2017 federal elections.

Elections in Germany and the far right

The most important factor in the drop in AfD votes is that the party lost credibility by not making specific policy recommendations for the problems that Germany is facing.

First of all, although the vast majority of Muslims in Germany are peaceful and tolerant, the AfD has created hostile rhetoric about Islam. It incites fear, classifies people, and pits groups against each other, especially during elections. The AfD conflates the concepts of Islam, immigration, and terrorism. On the other hand, COVID-19 underlined the codependency and interconnectedness of all segments of German society.

Although the vast majority of Muslims in Germany are peaceful and tolerant, the AfD has created hostile rhetoric about Islam.

The AfD claimed that internal security deteriorated due to the increasing number of foreigners and Muslims in Germany. However, the police crime statistics, which have been recorded since 1993, demonstrate the crime rates have been constantly decreasing.

The AfD’s asylum policy consists of harsh political demands and provocative slogans: they want to close the borders, exercise deportation, and cut off social support. Even the right of asylum provided by international law means nothing to them. The party wants to abolish individual protection and asylum guarantees. However, statistics reveal that Germany needs more foreign labor every year. If the AfD’s policy propositions had, in fact, been realized, there would have been serious problems in the labor supply in Germany as was the case in the U.K.

Elections and Germany’s domestic politics: immigration and Islamophobia

Although public support for the AfD has declined, having received 10.3% or 4,803,902 votes in a country with a high population like Germany suggests that it still has many supporters across German society. The AfD’s active use of digital platforms and social media is enhancing its popularity, especially among the youth. The AfD is the vanguard party for young people under 30. While 19% of voters under 30 voted for the AfD, 18% preferred the CDU.

The AfD is followed by the Green Party with 13% of the votes. This figure shows that the middle-aged and elderly population prefer the traditional parties; however, this points to a danger lurking in  Germany’s future. On the one hand, cases of violence related to discrimination and xenophobia are increasing in society, and on the other hand, votes for the far-right AfD are decreasing.

This may seem like a contradiction, but it shows that people with far-right ideas resort to violence more than in the past. Research has shown that 38% of AfD voters are strictly populist and 35% are partially populist. The majority (56%) of AfD voters seem to have embraced far-right views: 27% are potentially far-right advocates while 29% explicitly adhere to far-right ideology.

The September 2021 elections in Germany show that hopefully for at least four years, Muslims and foreigners will not face extra legal restrictions as the new German government is not expected to step up the abuses of the rights of Muslims or foreigners. The so-called Traffic Light Coalition (Ampelkoalition) consisting of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Free Democratic Party, and the Greens declared a coalition agreement that promised granting some rights to immigrants.

For instance, children who were born in Germany will receive German citizenship immediately at birth if one of the parents has lived in Germany for at least five years. Another important promise for immigrants is that they can become dual citizens. The conditions for acquiring German citizenship after five years of residing in the country could be made easier in Germany.

In other words, there is a room for hope. However, the AfD still poses a threat to Germany’s future. Time will tell whether the AfD will opt for further radicalizing its voter base and try to make them more aggressive towards Muslims and foreigners in an effort to gloss over its election loss.

The New York Times saw fit to give the title of “Leader of the Free World” to Angela Merkel after Donald Trump’s election in 2017. It is questionable if Merkel, who after 16 years of governing Germany will voluntarily leave her office following the federal elections of September 26, deserves this title. At the moment, the world consists of a West and an EU that have lost their internal unity, and are suffering from an erosion of moral and value superiority. Therefore, when evaluating Merkel’s legacy, it is essential to analyze the developments around the world in the last 30 years.

Breeze of freedom

When Merkel was first elected chancellor in 2005, it was 15 years after the West announced its victory over communism. The two Germanies had merged, and a breeze of freedom was blowing through the world. Moreover, the process of the formation of the European Union had accelerated, and no direct threat remained against the West after the removal of the risk factor coming from Eastern European countries, all of which had begun to join NATO and the EU.

Perhaps most importantly, China was a Third World country which acted as a workshop for the West, far from the challenging model and economic power that it is today. In light of the political atmosphere described above, famous American political scientist Francis Fukuyama had declared the “End of History” hailing the ascension of a Western liberal order and the West’s final victory. However, what is the state of the world and Europe today, 16 years later, as Merkel, the “Leader of the Free World,” prepares to leave office?

Europe and the world are much more unstable and chaotic now than when Merkel first took office, while Europe and the U.S. received a nasty blow in terms of moral superiority. On the other hand, China is now a world power which aims to use its economic power to create an order in line with those of the U.S. and Europe. Meanwhile, Russia threatens Europe’s security just as it did in the Soviet era, and Europe struggles to be the center of weight and appeal with Britain leaving the EU, numerous economic crises, and the rise of the far right. The question is what was Merkel’s role in creating today’s unstable, contemporary world.

It is important to underline that Merkel takes responsibility when it is necessary. For example, even though she wanted to leave politics along with the office of chancellor in 2017, she changed her mind after the election of Donald Trump.

First, it is important to underline that Merkel takes responsibility when it is necessary. For example, even though she wanted to leave politics along with the office of chancellor in 2017, she changed her mind after the election of Donald Trump. The anecdotes of Ben Rhodes, who was an advisor to Barack Obama when he was U.S. president, have offered us some details on the subject.

According to Rhodes, on November 8, 2016, eight days after Trump’s election, Obama privately visited Merkel in Berlin. Obama asked Merkel whether she’ll run again for chancellor during their dinner at the Adlon Hotel. Merkel told him that she feels a responsibility to run again to ensure the continuity of the liberal order after Trump’s election. Indeed, one week after this meeting, Merkel publicly announced that she would run again for office. This is undoubtedly evidence that Merkel has a character that does not shy away from taking on responsibility when it is called for.

Results of a passive attitude

Looking at the material results of Merkel’s policies, one can claim that her patient style did not pay off. Her attitude, patient according to some, “passive” according to others, separated Russia from the West and turned it into a threat for the West once more. The fact is that as the leader of perhaps the most important country in Europe, Merkel didn’t interfere with the EU’s signing of a free trade agreement with Ukraine despite all the opposition from Russia, which resulted in 13,000 deaths in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and the de facto division of Ukraine in two. In the end, the relationship between Europe and Russia was structurally damaged to the point that they were on the brink of an actual war. Merkel’s pre-crisis passive attitude and post-crisis weak management have dragged the E.U.-Russia relations into a long-term uncertainty.

What happened with Turkey during Merkel’s time in office is similar to what happened with Russia. Following its EU candidacy at the 1999 EU summit in Copenhagen, Turkey started a serious reform and entered a serious economic lunge by triplicating its GNP in a short time. However, after Merkel became chancellor, together with Sarkozy, president of France at the time, they virtually blocked Turkey’s EU accession.

Even though this might be understandable considering her party’s values, it has led to a crisis in both Turkey-EU and Turkey-Germany relations. What is more, Merkel’s exclusionary policies have led to Turkey expanding its foreign policy, first and foremost with Russia, and have interrupted Turkey’s reform dynamic by alienating it from the EU. Even though Merkel started to realize Turkey’s importance after the Syrian refugee crisis, it seems to be quite difficult for Turkey and the EU to build a relationship based on trust following this course of events.

Shortsightedness

In the end, we can say that the state of the world affairs is seriously different today than it was 16 years ago when Chancellor Merkel first took office. Then, the West and Europe enjoyed more stability and power than they do now. However, as Germany’s longest standing leader, Merkel perhaps could have intervened in some way to prevent events from taking the course that they did.