The debate over whether Germany should supply Taurus long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine has intensified once again, propelled by remarks from opposition leader Friedrich Merz, who urged Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government to finally deliver the weapons Kyiv has long requested.
The question now echoes across Berlin, Brussels, and Washington:
Is Germany preparing to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine — or is the government still unwilling to cross what it sees as a dangerous line?
Merz Reignites the Debate
Friedrich Merz, leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary bloc, has become one of the most vocal critics of the German government’s cautious approach to Ukraine’s military needs. Speaking to journalists this week, Merz again pressed the ruling coalition on the Taurus issue, arguing that:
- Ukraine urgently needs long-range precision weapons
- Delaying further support only benefits Russia
- Germany’s credibility as a leading European power is at stake
For Merz, the matter is clear: if the UK and France can supply Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles, Germany should not be the outlier.
His comments have once again placed pressure on Chancellor Scholz, who remains hesitant despite months of Ukrainian pleas.
Taurus Missiles: Why Kyiv Wants Them So Badly
The Taurus KEPD 350 missile is one of Europe’s most advanced long-range strike systems. Capable of traveling up to 500 km, flying at extremely low altitudes, and striking fortified targets with pinpoint accuracy, the missile would dramatically expand Ukraine’s ability to:
- Disrupt Russian supply lines deep behind the front
- Target military command centers
- Hit bridges, ammunition depots, and logistics hubs in occupied territories
- Challenge Russia’s operational depth in Crimea
For Kyiv, the Taurus is not just another weapon — it is a strategic advantage that could reshape the battlefield.
Scholz’s Reluctance: The Red Line He Won’t Cross
Despite strong support from the CDU/CSU opposition, numerous NATO partners, and the Ukrainian leadership, Chancellor Scholz has repeatedly blocked the delivery of Taurus missiles.
His reasons include:
1. Fear of escalation with Moscow
Scholz argues that long-range weapons capable of hitting Russian territory could drag Germany deeper into the conflict.
2. Concern over German personnel involvement
The Taurus system requires complex programming before launch. Berlin fears Ukraine may not be able to operate it independently without German military assistance, which Scholz sees as unacceptable.
3. Scholz’s broader strategy of “cautious support”
Unlike the UK or the Baltic states, Germany’s approach is defined by gradualism — always supporting Ukraine but never taking the first major step.
Merz: “Caution Must Not Become Paralysis”
Merz has sharply criticized Scholz’s stance, calling it “hesitant, unclear, and damaging to both Ukraine and Germany’s international standing.”
He argues that Berlin’s over-cautious approach is:
- Undermining Western unity
- Slowing down Ukraine’s defense capabilities
- Giving Russia military breathing room
- Weakening Germany’s reputation as a reliable partner
According to Merz, helping Ukraine win quickly is the best way to avoid escalation, not the other way around.
A Divided German Political Landscape
The Taurus issue has exposed deep fractures across German politics:
Support for sending Taurus:
- CDU/CSU (Merz and leadership)
- FDP lawmakers (including the defense committee chair)
- Large portions of the Greens
- Numerous security experts and ex-military leaders
Opposition or hesitation:
- Olaf Scholz personally
- Much of the SPD leadership
- Some centrist voters uneasy about escalation
- A growing anti-weapons movement influenced by AfD and populist narratives
The impasse has left Germany in a contradictory position: Berlin is already Ukraine’s second-largest arms supplier, yet it refuses the missile Kyiv wants most.
International Pressure Mounts
Germany’s allies are also watching closely:
- The United Kingdom has already provided Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine.
- France followed with its own SCALP systems.
- The Baltic states and Poland openly criticize Germany for delaying long-range capability deliveries.
- Washington, while cautious, has encouraged Europe to take “greater leadership” in high-end weapons support.
As battlefield conditions toughen and Ukraine faces ammunition shortages, the Taurus debate becomes increasingly urgent.
Ukraine’s View: Every Day of Delay Costs Lives
Kyiv has been transparent: the Taurus system could significantly weaken Russia’s logistical capacity, especially in occupied Crimea. Ukrainian officials warn that:
- Russian supply lines remain too deep to reach
- Crimea remains fortified and extremely difficult to disrupt
- Precision strike capability is essential for future offensive operations
- Every week of delay strengthens Russia’s defensive posture
For Ukraine, the Taurus is not symbolic — it is operationally decisive.
Is Germany Getting Closer to Saying Yes?
Although the government denies any change in policy, several signs suggest the internal debate is shifting:
- Recent discussions within the Bundestag defense committee
- Pressure from coalition partners
- Increasing frustration among European allies
- Growing evidence that Russia is fortifying Crimea faster than expected
- Public opinion gradually becoming more supportive of stronger aid
Still, Scholz remains firm — and unless he personally changes his position, a Taurus delivery remains unlikely in the near term.
Conclusion: A Moment of Strategic Responsibility
Germany now stands at a defining crossroads.
Friedrich Merz’s renewed push has reignited a national and continental debate about Germany’s role in shaping the outcome of the largest European war since 1945.
The question is no longer simply about missiles — it is about leadership, responsibility, and the future security architecture of Europe.
Will Germany remain cautious and reserved, or will it step forward and join its allies in providing Ukraine with the capabilities it desperately needs?
The decision will echo far beyond Ukraine.
It will shape Germany’s reputation, Europe’s unity, and the strategic balance against Russian aggression for years to come.
