The choices we have to make after the elections
Friedrich Merz has won. He has achieved his personal goal. In all likelihood, he will become Germany’s tenth Chancellor with the second-worst election result in the history of the CDU/CSU. Angela Merkel already acknowledged his qualifications for this path during the launch of her memoir, “Freedom,” in December 2024 (zas-freiburg.de), when she attributed to him an “unconditional will to power”—adding, “and that’s why I wish him well.”
This statement, upon reflection, is rather compromising, although it appears to have been genuinely intended as a compliment—a recognition of Merz’s determination. Should an individual who prioritises himself and his ambitions above everything and everyone else be considered the best choice for Germany’s welfare? Reducing Germany’s future to a personal career ambition can hardly be what we need.
In Friedrich Merz, this path becomes particularly evident—but he is hardly an exception; rather, this seems to be the rule (the political career).
The future Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany will scarcely be envied. As long as the firewall (“Brandmauer”) against the right wing AFD prevents a truly “grand coalition,” the only feasible option is a medium-sized coalition with a thoroughly exhausted SPD. Following its worst electoral result in 137 years, this would deny the SPD an opportunity for renewal in opposition, sealing its permanent decline and marking the end of German Social Democracy.
Yet, this would not even be the only dramatic change looming ahead.
The whole of Europe is undoubtedly at a historic crossroads. One path leads to strategic autonomy, political unity and a strengthening of its own capabilities, explicitly including military capabilities, in order to achieve genuine independence.
The alternative path entails becoming heavily dependent on the United States, relying increasingly on the US for economic and security matters—effectively formalising Europe’s status as a vassal state.
This decision will define Europe’s role and position in the future global landscape.
The situation is grave. On 26 February 2025, Ian Bremmer rhetorically asked: “Can Friedrich Merz be the leader Germany—and Europe—need?” The short answer is no. Lukas Hermsmeier of the NYT agrees. Bremmer, being a journalist, provides a longer yet useful answer.
Nevertheless, Friedrich Merz struck the right chord, correctly addressing the urgency when he declared his “absolute priority” as Chancellor would be “strengthening Europe” to achieve “independence” from the United States. The Trump administration appears largely indifferent to Europe’s fate—a fact even Friedrich Merz has now recognised.
Before Washington began adopting a significantly harsher tone, Merz was known as a committed transatlanticist. However, he now also senses that not only German interests are at stake, but Europe’s future—and perhaps even more.
Yet, he clearly lacks a coherent vision for strengthening Europe, or at least has not articulated one. Indeed, Europe as a respected international actor with real influence on the world stage does not yet exist; it still needs to be created.
An independent and confident Europe, impervious to division by either “friend” or “foe” (should such distinctions exist among states), would require a fundamentally different structure than today’s EU: a federal state rather than a loose confederation. Such an entity, unlike the current and often somewhat mocked EU, could genuinely influence world affairs.
For China, for example, Europe’s strategic decision would have significant consequences. On the one hand, a more independent Europe could counterbalance the global strategy of the US, creating a more favourable international environment for China and, by extension, for Europe itself.
Conversely, complete dependence on the US would strengthen American global dominance and increase strategic pressure on China. If Europe continues down this path of reliance, it risks becoming an economic “crowbar,” harming its own interests in the process.
To be taken seriously, a state must be large, strong, and reliable. This encompasses economic power, military strength, and political actions—a fact as obvious as it is logical.
Yet, for enough European states to move decisively in this direction, they must unfortunately first feel significant pressure to act. There is a faint hope that the current unclear security situation is already providing such an impetus.
While previously the US was unequivocally regarded as Europe’s political and military shield, Europe now faces a delicate choice: becoming a vassal protected by the US or pursuing genuine independence amidst global uncertainty.
It is plausible that Europe may be pressured into making this decision by its supposed protector. The retired libertarian conservative American politician Dr Ron Paul rhetorically asks: “US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabres at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defence? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defence of rich Europeans? ”
The situation, of course, is far more complex than portrayed here. Historically, the US benefited considerably from this division of responsibilities—a separate topic in itself. However, what is abundantly clear is the radical shift in opinion—a seismic event for Europe.
This sounds like a wake-up call. Perhaps it will succeed. Yet, I am not entirely convinced that, once awakened, we have the right leadership teams in our European governments; rather, I doubt it. Are they not all too preoccupied with their personal careers?
One thing, however, should be clear: Germany will not be accepted as Europe’s leading nation. Europe must reinvent itself entirely.
What we have built so far might seem impressive—but sadly, it will not suffice in the near future.
The people have voted. They now have to live with the result. But the more momentous choices still have to be made.
