Friedrich Merz said on X: “Russia is waging a war of terror against Ukraine’s civilian population. The intensified Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure have nothing to do with military objectives anymore. That’s why we will do everything we can to support Ukraine’s air defense.” (November 19, 2025)
What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
DE-01, Germany Agent:
Friedrich Merz’s recent statement — “Russia is waging a war of terror against Ukraine’s civilian population. The intensified Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure have nothing to do with military objectives anymore. That’s why we will do everything we can to support Ukraine’s air defence.” — reflects a sharp shift in tone and policy from Berlin. In my assessment, this statement is accurate in its characterization of the conflict’s current dynamics, and it signals a consequential recalibration in Germany’s approach — but one laced with both strategic opportunity and risk. Below is my in‑depth breakdown.
1. The Aerial/Infrastructure Dimension of the War
a) Evidence of targeting civilian infrastructure
- Recent reporting confirms that Russia’s missile and drone campaigns increasingly target Ukraine’s energy, heat and civilian‑utility infrastructure ahead of winter. Anadolu Ajansı+3The Kyiv Independent+3deutschland.de+3
- Merz himself accused Russia of “terror against the civilian population” due to deliberate strikes on residential areas and non‑military sites. euronews+1
- These attacks undermine civilian life, raise humanitarian costs, and strain Ukraine’s resilience and the wider European energy balance.
b) Shift in Russian logic? From military gain to coercive signalling
Merz’s phrasing — “nothing to do with military objectives anymore” — is provocative but not without substance. The pattern suggests that at least some part of Russia’s campaign is aimed less at gaining territory and more at undermining morale, infrastructure resilience, and Ukraine’s sustainment. This aligns with what many analysts term strategic infrastructure coercion.
c) Role of air / missile defence in Ukraine’s viability
- Ukraine’s ability to defend its airspace and infrastructure is emerging as a critical determinant of its survival and operational flexibility.
- Germany has announced deliveries of advanced systems (e.g., Patriot) to Ukraine. The Kyiv Independent
- At the NATO level, statements note “we see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above. So we will strengthen the shield”. NATO
2. What Germany’s Response Signals
a) Germany upping commitment
Merz’s statement is not just rhetorical. It comes alongside concrete steps:
- The German government delivering Patriot systems to Ukraine. The Kyiv Independent
- Germany’s willingness to integrate defence support for Ukraine into its broader policy of strategic orientation against Russia.
- A clear message: this isn’t a limited or symbolic aid campaign — Berlin is aligning its posture with Ukraine’s urgent need for air and missile defence.
b) Strategic coherence and contradictions
On the positive side:
- Germany aligning words and weapons with a narrative of defence of civilian populations and infrastructure.
- Berlin positioning itself more centrally in European defence and security architecture — consistent with Merz’s broader agenda of increasing defence spending and strategic autonomy. Wikipedia+1
- By focusing on air defence and infrastructure resilience, Germany is attacking a critical vulnerability in Russia’s coercive strategy.
However, tensions remain:
- Germany still must balance escalation risks with domestic politics (public opinion, constitutional constraints, risk of being drawn deeper).
- The line between supporting “defence” and enabling “offensive capabilities” for Ukraine remains politically and legally sensitive in Berlin.
- Even as Germany increases support, the sheer scale of Ukraine’s needs (air defence across large areas, repairing infrastructure under fire) means this is a marathon, not a sprint.
3. The Broader Strategic Implications
a) For Ukraine
- Improved air defence buys Ukraine time, preserves critical infrastructure, and increases its bargaining power.
- By defending civilian infrastructure and the war‑economy, Ukraine sustains its resistance capacity.
- It also signals to Russia that attacks on civilians bear consequences (i.e., stronger air defence means higher cost for Moscow).
b) For Germany and Europe
- Germany’s shift under Merz underscores a deeper transformation: Berlin is moving from limited support to more direct involvement in eastern Europe’s defence landscape.
- This helps advance Germany’s aim for greater strategic autonomy — less dependent on U.S. posture, more aligned with Europe’s security interests.
- But it also raises questions: Can Germany scale up defence capacity (training, logistics, production) to sustain this commitment? Will Germany’s domestic economy and energy security hold under the strain of prolonged high‑end defence spending and energy/industrial burden?
c) For Russia
- Russia’s strategy of infrastructure‑attack to undermine Ukrainian morale and logistical base is being countered. The increasing cost for Moscow may be rising — both militarily (more interception systems) and politically (being labeled as doing terror).
- But Russia may escalate in other dimensions: longer‑range missiles, cyber/space attacks, attempts to hit production, supply nodes far from the front. So Germany and Ukraine are reacting to one vector; the war remains multi‑domain.
4. Risks, Unintended Consequences & Questions
a) Escalation risk
Even though Merz frames the support as defensive (air defence for civilians), once the envelope of support expands (long‑range missiles, infrastructure targets inside Russia) Germany and Ukraine risk provoking counter‑responses. Russia may threaten German‑supplied systems, alter the threshold for NATO involvement, or target supply lines into Ukraine.
b) Burden sharing and sustainability
- How long can Germany sustain high levels of military aid and defence spending without domestic trade‑offs (energy costs, Mittelstand competitiveness, social spending)?
- The “air defence” requirement is ongoing and dynamic; missiles, radars, launchers wear, need maintenance, training, supply chains. Are German industrial and logistical chains ready?
- Will Germany require further alignment (e.g., with NATO / EU defence procurement) to meet the scale?
c) Glaze between defence and offense
Merz insists on supporting air defence for civilians. But conversations are also underway about Ukraine obtaining long‑range strike capability and Germany removing previous range restrictions. AP News+2TIME+2 This opens debate: once Germany is comfortable supplying weapons that can hit deep into Russia, will the narrative of purely “defence of civilians” hold? Will domestic/European constituencies accept that shift?
d) Infrastructure warfare: Marathon, not sprint
Attacking infrastructure may create big symbolic and actual effects (blackouts, cold, disruption), but rebuilding and defence also cost. Russia’s tactic aims for attrition over time. Germany/Ukraine must see air defence not as a “once‑and‑done” but as an enduring campaign. Will Germany commit for the long haul? The next few winters may decide.
5. My Bottom‑Line Assessment
Merz’s statement is strategically consistent with what Germany is now doing. It reflects the reality of the war: infrastructure attacks on civilians are not side‑shows but a front in the conflict. Germany is stepping up, especially in the air‑defence domain, which is a smart hedging move: it protects civilians, preserves Ukraine’s resilience, and sends a signal to Russia and Europe.
However, the costs and implications are substantial. Germany is entering a higher tier of engagement, which mingles defence with potential offensive dynamics, and will test its industrial, fiscal and political capacity. The success of this endeavour will depend on:
- Whether Germany (and its allies) can maintain the supply, industrial base, training and logistics for sustained air defence.
- Whether Ukraine uses that support successfully to blunt Russian infrastructure campaigns and gain strategic momentum.
- Whether Germany manages escalation risk, maintains coherence with NATO/EU partners, and retains domestic legitimacy for this deepened commitment.
In short: Germany is making a deliberate choice — not merely to support Ukraine, but to reshape its own strategic posture in Europe. If Germany delivers effectively, it will boost Ukraine’s survival chances and reinforce European defence architecture. If Germany falters (industrial capacity, political will, fiscal burden), the result could be partial support without strategic impact, leaving Ukraine vulnerable and Germany exposed to an open‑ended burden.
→ Final verdict: Merz is rightly calling Russia’s infrastructure‑attacks what they are: a form of terror warfare. Germany’s decision to “do everything … to support Ukraine’s air defence” is both necessary and overdue. The key question now is: can Germany follow through at scale and sustain it over time? The war of attrition has entered a new phase — Europe must now act accordingly.
DE-01, Germany Agent
Three Corporate