Friedrich Merz picks pro-Kyiv foreign minister and promises German support for Ukraine
Germany's chancellor-designate, Friedrich Merz, has promised to put staunch support of Ukraine at the heart of his government after announcing that a pro-Kyiv foreign policy expert and former soldier will be the new foreign minister.
Speaking days before he is due to take power, Merz said on Monday it was 'no time for euphoria' as his conservative CDU met to approve an agreement to form a coalition government with the Social Democrats.
Promising to tackle Russian aggression and the rise of the far right, he told party colleagues: 'The pillars we have relied on over the past years and decades are crumbling around us. Trust in our democracy is damaged like never before in our country's postwar history.'
Merz, a former banker, said that Johann Wadephul, a conservative MP who has long advised Merz on foreign policy, would become the new foreign minister.
Wadephul has been a supporter of military backing for Ukraine and recently told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) newspaper the war in Ukraine 'is not about a few square kilometres in Ukraine but rather the fundamental question of whether we will allow a classic war of conquest in Europe'.
Merz said that despite domestic misgivings about Germany's role in Ukraine, with some calling for a halt to weapons deliveries, there were 'no ifs or buts' about its continued support. Vladimir Putin's invasion, he said, was nothing less than a battle 'against the entire political order of the European continent'.
Germany, he stressed, would remain 'on the side of this attacked country and therefore on the side of all people in Europe who are committed to democracy and the rule of law…to freedom and an open society.'
His statement came hours after Boris Pistorius, a social democrat who is widely expected to continue in the role as defence minister, said Donald Trump's peace deal proposals were 'akin to a capitulation'.
Pistorius and Wadephul are expected to work closely together in a newly formed national security council to represent Germany on the European and international stage.
In a nod to Trump but without naming him, Merz said on Monday: 'We have come to the realisation that we can no longer be certain of the transatlantic relationship in the spirit of freedom and the rules-based order.'
Merz and his government are due to be sworn into parliament on 6 May, ending six months of political gridlock. His conservative CDU/CSU alliance agreed a deal to coalesce with the Social Democrats (SPD) after winning a federal election on 23 February, in which the far-right populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) came second.
The results of a poll of the SPD's 365,000 members approving the deal is expected on Wednesday. Only once they have given the green light will the SPD announce its cabinet ministers, said the party's co-leader Lars Klingbeil.
Sign up to Headlines Europe
A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day
after newsletter promotion
Over recent months, amid a sense of stasis and growing dissatisfaction across the country, the AfD has crept up in the polls and is now for the first time ahead of the conservatives.
Merz has pledged to reduce the AfD, which had managed to take advantage of people's fear and insecurity he said, to the 'marginal phenomenon' it once was. He would do so, he said, by tackling 'irregular' immigration that had 'got out of hand' over the past decade, an allusion to his predecessor Angela Merkel's so-called open-door policy which saw about 1 million refugees come to Germany.
Among his surprise appointments is that of Karsten Wildberger, the chief executive of Ceconomy, the parent company of the German electronic retailers Saturn and Mediamarkt, who will head up a new ministry for digitalisation and modernisation of the state.
He will, in part, be responsible for deciding how a special multibillion euro fund – controversially passed by the outgoing government to boost Germany's ailing infrastructure and its shrinking economy, as well as strengthening its defence forces – is to be spent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
Imperialism still overshadows our intellectual history
Peter Watson begins his survey of the history of ideas in Britain with the assertion that the national mindset (which at that time was the English mindset) changed significantly after the accession of Elizabeth I. His book – a guide to the nature of British intellectual curiosity since the mid-16th century – begins there, just as England had undergone a liberation from a dominant European authority: the shaking off of the influence of the Roman Catholic church and the advent of the Reformation, and the new opportunities that offered for the people. He describes how a culture based largely on poetry and on the court of Elizabeth then redirected the prevailing intellectual forces of the time. This affected not just literature (Marlowe, Shakespeare and Jonson) but also helped develop an interest in science that grew remarkably throughout the next few centuries. The 'imagination' of Watson's title is not merely the creative artistic imagination, but also that of scientists and inventors and, indeed, of people adept at both. The book is, according to its footnotes, based on secondary sources, so those well read in the history of the intellect in Britain since the Reformation will find much that is familiar. There is the odd surprise, such as one that stems from the book's occasional focus on the British empire and the need felt today to discuss its iniquities. Watson writes that the portion of the British economy based on the slave trade (which must not be conflated with empire) was between 1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. He also writes that for much of the era of slavery the British had a non-racial view of it, since their main experience of the odious trade was of white people being captured by Barbary pirates and held to ransom. While this cannot excuse the barbarism endured by Africans shipped by British (and other) slavers across the Atlantic, it lends some perspective to a question in serious danger of losing any vestige of one. Watson does not come down on one side or the other in the empire debate, eschewing the 'balance sheet' approach taken by historians such as Nigel Biggar and Niall Ferguson; but he devotes too much of the last section of his book to the question, when other intellectual currents in the opening decades of the 21st century might have been more profitably explored, not least the continuing viability of democracy. Earlier on, he gives much space to an analysis of Edward Said, and questions such as whether Jane Austen expressed her antipathy to slavery sufficiently clearly in the novel Mansfield Park. But then some of Watson's own analyses of writers and thinkers are not always easily supported. He is better on the 18th century – dealing well with the Scottish enlightenment (giving a perfectly nuanced account of Adam Smith) and writers such as Burke and Gibbon – than he appears to be on the 19th. He gives Carlyle his due, but cites an article in a learned American journal from 40 years ago to justify his claim that Carlyle's 'reputation took a knock' in 1849 with the publication of his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Watson says readers were offended by the use of the term 'Quashee' to describe a black man. They may well, if so, have been unsettled by the still less palatable title that the Discourse was subsequently given, which was The Nigger Question: it appeared thus in a 1853 pamphlet and in the Centenary Edition of Carlyle's works in 1899. That indicates the Discourse did Carlyle's reputation no lasting harm at the time, whatever it may have done since. In seeking to pack so much into fewer than 500 pages of text, Watson does skate over a few crucial figures. Some of his musings on empire might have been sacrificed to make more space for George Orwell, for example. A chapter in whose title his name appears features just one brief paragraph on him, about Homage to Catalonia, and later there is a page or so on Animal Farm, which says nothing new. Of Orwell's extensive and mould-breaking journalism there is nothing – somewhat surprising in a book about the British imagination when dealing with one of its leading exponents of the past century. Watson emphasises scientific discovery and innovation, and the effect on national life and ideas caused by the Industrial Revolution. These are all essential consequences of our intellectual curiosity, and he is right to conclude that the historic significance of Britain in these fields is immense. He includes league tables of Nobel prizewinners by nation in which Britain shows remarkably well. But these prizes are not the only means by which the contribution to civilisation and progress by a people are measured. There are notable omissions. Although Watson talks about the elitist nature of 'high culture' – such as Eliot and The Waste Land – he does not discuss how far the British imagination, and the British contribution to world civilisation, might have advanced had we taken the education of the masses more seriously earlier. We were, until the Butler Education Act of 1944, appalling at developing our human resources, and have not been much better since. It is surprising that there is no discussion of British music, one of the greatest fruits of the imagination of the past 150 years. And there is no analysis of the role of architecture, which, given its impact and its centrality to many people's idea of themselves as British, surely merited examination. The book shows extensive and intelligent reading, but trying to cram so much information and commentary into one volume has not been a complete success, or resulted in something entirely coherent.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
What happened to Piers Morgan
'What happened to Piers Morgan?' asked a Spectator writer last weekend. The answer, according to slavishly pro-Israel commentator Jonathan Sacerdoti, is that I'm now 'dark, degraded, dismal and debased' – because I've become more critical of how Israel is prosecuting its war in Gaza. For a long time on my YouTube show Uncensored, I defended the country's right to defend itself after 7 October attacks. But I now believe Benjamin Netanyahu's government has crossed the 'proportionality' line with its recent food and aid blockade and relentless bombardment of civilians. Self-evidently, Israel is failing in its mission to eliminate Hamas and get the remaining hostages released. Its forces have been killing and starving a horrendous number of children as they go after the terrorists – and if finance minister Bezalel Smotrich is to be taken at his genocidal-sounding word, its new mission is to kick all Palestinians out of Gaza, which would constitute ethnic cleansing. Even former Israeli prime ministers now say it's committing war crimes. When I defended Israel, I was subjected to a ferocious onslaught from pro-Palestinian trolls who branded me a 'Zionist genocide-enabler'. Now, I've had an equally vile barrage of abuse and threats from pro-Israeli trolls branding me a 'Jew-hating anti-Semite'. How can I be both? Amid the pro-Israeli hate, I criticised Dawn French for offensively downplaying 7 October as just 'a bad thing' in a mocking video, and I described the insufferably tedious Greta Thunberg as an attention-seeking narcissist for preposterously claiming she'd been kidnapped by the IDF on her puerile selfie-yacht stunt. I was instantly attacked as an Israeli stooge by the same pro-Palestinian trolls who'd been lauding me and praised by the pro-Israeli trolls who'd been howling 'Hamas lover!' at me for days. 'You can't win, Piers,' I hear you say. But for a journalist to be attacked by both sides in a war of this historical complexity is a win. It means I'm doing my job properly. The answer to 'What happened to Piers Morgan?' is that I'm right where I want to be. 'Cambio de Tercio tonight? x' read the anonymous text as I attended the Champions League final. I was intrigued; that's my favourite Spanish restaurant in London. 'Who's this?' I replied. 'I'm in Munich.' 'Rishi.' I've regularly texted with our former prime minister, and Cambio is also one of his favourite restaurants, so this made perfect sense. 'Ah! You've got a new number. Are you there tonight? Let's have dinner soon.' 'I have a new number. Would love dinner. Will you be in LA over the summer?' (Rishi and I, with our wives, dined together in Beverly Hills last August.) 'Great,' I replied, 'And yes, will be in LA.' He then said he'd get one of his advisers, a mutual friend, to sort the date. 'PSG ripping Inter Milan to pieces,' I added. 'I'm watching on TV,' he said. 'I was rooting for Inter, always backing the underdog!' Again, very Rishi. It was only the next day that I spotted the 'x' at the end of his initial message and alarm bells rang. Rishi and I are friendly, but not 'x' friendly. Sure enough, our mutual friend confirmed it wasn't him. Coincidentally, during my trip to Qatar to attend the Emir's state dinner for President Trump, one of the latter's aides reminded me of the time a prankster once chatted to The Donald on the phone by pretending to be me. Incredibly, the imposter persuaded the White House switchboard to put 'me' through to Trump and they had a lengthy conversation. Obviously, all hell broke loose when one of his team later asked me how the call had gone and I said I hadn't made any calls. The aide said they assumed the fake chat would get leaked somewhere, and prompt several firings, but nothing ever appeared. Which raises the question, as with the fake Rishi: why do it? Five years ago, on a family villa holiday in Saint-Tropez, we were burgled by a gang that broke in while we were asleep. A local detective revealed they were ruthless teenage girl thieves with petite mains or 'little hands'. This week, Deadline Hollywood announced that Universal Studios and Working Title had won a 'ten-way bidding war' to land a rights deal in the 'six-figure against seven figures' for my wife Celia's new novel Little Hands, about a gang of girl thieves operating on the French Riviera. And they say crime doesn't pay. I'm 33-1 to be London's next mayor. In light of Sir Keir Starmer's winter fuel allowance U-turn, broken tax promises and unachievable plan to build 1.5 million new homes during this parliament, if I ever do become a politician, my only pledge will be to make no pledges.
South Wales Argus
6 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Fifa warned about free speech restrictions at 2026 World Cup
The warnings follow recent US government policies under President Donald Trump, which include a travel ban affecting 12 countries, such as World Cup qualifier Iran, and heightened criticism over responses to civil unrest. The United States will co-host the tournament alongside Canada and Mexico, with California's Rose Bowl also set to host matches during the upcoming FIFA Club World Cup, which starts on Saturday. Ronan Evain, executive director of Football Supporters Europe, said: "Fans travel to the World Cup to celebrate and express their passion and any attempt to curtail our fundamental rights, including the right to free speech, is a betrayal of the spirit of football. "We're particularly concerned about the potential for selective enforcement and discrimination against fans based on our perceived political views or national origin. "FIFA must obtain the necessary guarantees to ensure fans from all over the world are able to safely travel and attend the games." Human rights organisations have voiced concerns about increasing restrictions on freedom of expression, particularly regarding pro-Palestinian protests. Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch, said: "FIFA should publicly acknowledge the threat US immigration and other anti-human rights policies pose to the tournament's integrity and use its leverage with the US government to ensure that the rights of all qualified teams, support staff, media and fans are respected as they seek to enter the United States, regardless of nationality, gender identity, religion or opinion." The US government has stated that the travel ban will not apply to players or team staff from qualified nations. However, it will prevent fans from Iran and other affected countries from attending matches in person. FIFA and the US State Department have been contacted for comment.
