by Mounir Kilani
As the European economy sinks and the war in Ukraine drags on, Germany is once again driving an uncontrolled strategic escalation. Friedrich Merz and Ursula von der Leyen embody an elite that confuses moral fortitude with geopolitical suicide, disregarding the lessons of European history and the fundamental principle of indivisible security.
As 2025 draws to a close, Europe is no longer moving forward; it is sliding. It is sliding toward a profound economic crisis, toward accelerated deindustrialization, toward a social impoverishment that leaders pretend not to see, and above all, toward a military escalation whose consequences no one can control. The sanctions against Russia, presented as a moral weapon, have proven to be a weapon directed against ourselves. The war in Ukraine, far from ending, has become a structural conflict, without a clear political horizon, without an exit strategy, but with an increasingly dangerous downward spiral.
In this context, Jeffrey Sachs' open letter to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz should have been a wake-up call. Sachs, a renowned economist and former advisor to governments and international institutions, reiterates a simple truth that is nevertheless systematically denied by Western elites: security is indivisiblePeace cannot be built by humiliating a strategic adversary, least of all a major nuclear power. But this polite and reasoned warning was ignored.
We must therefore go further and call things by their name. The problem is not merely an analytical error or a diplomatic blunder. The current German elite, embodied by Friedrich Merz and Ursula von der Leyen, has become objectively dangerous. Through ideological blindness, strategic subservience to Washington, and contempt for European history, it is pushing the continent toward a major, potentially nuclear, catastrophe. This is no longer a policy: it is a headlong rush. And this headlong rush is reviving a specter that Europe thought had been buried since 1945.
Friedrich Merz: the arrogance of a novice and the risk of an arsonist
Barely elected chancellor, Friedrich Merz hastened to present himself as the new leader of the European hawks. Support for Ukraine "for as long as necessary," an avowed desire to push Russia to economic exhaustion, and a bellicose rhetoric disconnected from any strategic reality: Merz confuses firmness with irresponsibility. The translation of his political line is simple: starve a nuclear power to force it to capitulate. An idea that, in any serious textbook of international relations, borders on madness.
His plan for a massive loan of over €200 billion to Kyiv, financed by common European debt, illustrates this drift. Not only does it commit European taxpayers to a long-term burden without any real democratic debate, but it also mechanically prolongs the war. The tactical retreat on the confiscation of frozen Russian assets—a legally explosive measure potentially amounting to a serious violation of international law—is not a sign of wisdom, but a maneuver forced by the resistance of certain states and the fear of an uncontrollable Russian response.
Even more serious: Merz mentions security guarantees for Ukraine equivalent to Article 5 of NATO, following a potential ceasefire. This is a de facto extension of the Atlantic Alliance, without explicitly stating it, without voting on it, without taking responsibility for it. In other words: a promise of future war.
On the European stage, Merz has already faced reality. At the December 2025 summit, he was publicly weakened, forced to back down in the face of several partners, revealing a worrying combination of inexperience and political ruthlessness. But far from learning from this failure, he is accelerating down the most dangerous path: rearmament. With German military spending now exceeding 3,5% of GDP, surpassing €100 billion annually, Germany is rearming at a pace unseen since the Cold War.
European history should serve as a warning. The problem is not the German people. It never has been. The problem lies with elites convinced of their moral superiority, certain they possess the strategic truth, and incapable of imagining the consequences of their actions. Merz is not protecting Europe. He is playing with a powder keg, in the immediate vicinity of a nuclear match..
Ursula von der Leyen: the total failure of "geopolitical Europe"
If Merz embodies national arrogance, Ursula von der Leyen embodies supranational failure. Her second term as head of the European Commission is a political, economic, and strategic disaster. Under the guise of moral firmness, she imposed massive sanctions against Russia without preparation, without an industrial vision, and without a coherent energy strategy. The result is well known: persistent inflation, soaring energy costs, industrial relocations, and increased dependence on American liquefied natural gas—more expensive, more polluting, and politically constraining.
The European Union has replaced one dependency with another, and an even worse one. This is not a policy of sovereignty; it is a deliberate vassalage. Even symbolically, von der Leyen has been humiliated: forced retreat on frozen Russian assets, open mockery from Moscow, and increasingly visible internal divisions within the EU. In the European Parliament, criticism is mounting, including among those who officially support Ukraine: accusations of the methodical destruction of European sovereignty, of inconsistency in the face of American reversals, and of an inability to anticipate a possible disengagement by Washington.
His concept of a "geopolitical Europe" is in reality merely a technocratic veneer for Atlanticist alignment. The EU is not becoming an autonomous strategic actor; it is becoming a relay, a multiplier of decisions made elsewhere. In this logic, Europeans provide the money, the weapons, and the sanctions, and bear the economic consequences, while others set the red lines… without being subject to them.
The awakening of the "monster": when the German elite loses its memory
At the heart of this drift lies a German elite largely disconnected from social and historical realities. After decades of relative strategic restraint, Germany has shifted into a logic of "preparing for war" and moral and material rearmament, driven by excessive confidence and a growing disregard for diplomacy. This transformation is occurring within an explosive context: industrial decline, social tensions, the rise of extremism, and political fragmentation.
This is not a mechanical repetition of the past, but a dangerous rhyme with it. Each time, it is elites, convinced they are acting for the greater good, certain of their own rationality, who lead nations toward the abyss. Even today, the dominant narrative claims that more weapons bring peace, that escalation deters, that refusing to negotiate is a sign of moral courage. This is false. And it is precisely this type of illusion that, historically, has produced the worst catastrophes.
An overwhelming political and legal responsibility
By knowingly prolonging a conflict whose military outcome is unrealistic, by ignoring the principles of collective security stemming from Helsinki, and by flirting with serious violations of international law, current European leaders are incurring historical—and potentially legal—responsibility. Governing is not merely about proclaiming values; it is about anticipating the foreseeable consequences of one's actions. And here, the risk of a major escalation is known, documented, and has been warned by numerous experts.
To persist in this situation amounts, at the very least, to criminal negligence.
Peace or downfall
Faced with this disaster orchestrated by Merz, von der Leyen, and their warmongering clique, a burning question arises: what is the way out of this crisis? The answer is obvious, but it terrifies European elites: a negotiated, swift, and realistic peace, based on mutual respect for security and the abandonment of Atlanticist hubris. Everything else—more weapons, more sanctions, more European troops in Ukraine—is merely a continuation of the carnage, economic suicide for Europe, and nuclear Russian roulette.
Jeffrey Sachs brilliantly explained it in his open letter to Merz: security is indivisible. You can't arm Ukraine to the teeth while ignoring Russia's legitimate concerns, accumulated over thirty years of broken promises to NATO. The solution?
- Permanent neutrality of Ukraine, internationally guaranteed (like Austria in 1955 or Finland in the past): no accession to NATO, end of enlargement to the East.
- Reciprocal demilitarization along the borders, with a buffer zone supervised by the OSCE or the UN.
- Immediate lifting of sanctions which are devastating the European economy and the resumption of trade with Russia.
- Return to a pan-European security architectureincluding Russia, via the strengthened OSCE, and not the dominant NATO.
As December 2025 draws to a close, negotiations under Trump's auspices are progressing. Zelensky speaks of "progress," and Putin declares himself open to a comprehensive agreement. Yet, Merz and von der Leyen cling to their hawkish stance: a multinational European force in Ukraine, an army of 800,000 troops in Kyiv, and massive loans to prolong the war. It's pure madness!
These elites are not defending Europe; they are sacrificing it on the altar of Washington. Their rejection of diplomacy is criminal. The European people must demand this change: remove these hawks, impose a peace conference including all parties, and return to the Helsinki principles. Sachs is right: learn history, or condemn us all.
This fight is not pro-Russian. It is not anti-European. It is pro-reality, pro-survival, pro-diplomacy. To refuse to see where the current trajectory is leading is to accept the risk of a historical collapse.
Europe has already paid too high a price for the mistakes of its elites. The time for moral slogans is over; now is the time for responsibility.
Peace is possible. But it requires the political removal of those who prefer war to truth.
To refuse it is to choose downfall.