Germans new Chancellor Friedrich Merz described by his critics as a seemingly emotional leader may land himself in trouble on the international diplomatic stage.
His critics caution that Merz has to realize that international diplomacy follows a different set of rules than domestic policy debates.
In foreign relations, every word carries weight. Every gesture. Small missteps can ruffle feathers and have broad international implications.
Unlike his predecessors, “Merz’s spontaneous style, which sometimes leads to comments that have not been carefully considered, is a mixed bag,” Maria Fiedler wrote in an editorial carried via monday’s DER SPIEGEL.
During last Monday’s Exclusive interview on WDR, Merz spoke about possible deliveries to Ukraine of long-range ballistic missiles.
And he said that the destruction of the Kerch Bridge – the strategically important land link between Russia and the Russian-occupied Crimea Peninsula – would “give Ukraine a leg up.”
Here was the future German chancellor providing advice on how to attack Russia. It was a comment that likely made a diplomat or two break out in a cold sweat.
Merz then declared that there would no longer be any range restrictions for weapons supplied to Ukraine.
Ukraine, he said, could now defend itself by attacking military positions inside Russia.
Newswires immediately picked up on the comment and sent it around the world as breaking news. Whether that was Merz’s intention, however, seems doubtful.
In contrast to its allies, Germany has thus far refrained from supplying any weapons to Ukraine that could reach targets on Russian territory.
What, then, was Merz talking about? It was only two days later, during a visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Berlin, that the riddle was solved: Germany intends, in the future, to help Ukraine develop long-range weapons systems of its own – and for these weapons, there would be no range restrictions.
Merz, though, was apparently not yet able to speak about those plans during his Monday interview. Why, then, didn’t he avoid the subject entirely?
Merz clearly wishes to define himself as a more emotional leader who speaks directly and doesn’t always follow the script.
Domestically, such a style has plenty of advantages: It makes him seem more approachable, more tangible, and it may even counteract widespread disenchantment with politics.
However, when it comes to foreign policy, it is risky. In part because Merz’s full-throated proclamations raise expectations that he cannot fulfill.
