Merkel slams ‘Putinversteher' witch hunts
In an interview with Berliner Zeitung on Friday, Merkel was asked how she felt about the term, which is often used to label people who address Russian President Vladimir Putin's concerns over NATO expansion. 'Not good, because there has to be a discussion about it. You have to plan ahead for diplomatic initiatives so that they are available at the right moment,' she said.
She also rejected the idea that seeking to understand Moscow's position amounts to supporting it. 'I find the accusation of being a Putinversteher inappropriate. It is used as a conversation-stopper, a way to shut down debate.'
Asked if she has ever been called one, Merkel replied: 'No one has ever called me that – it's a strange word. Understanding what Putin does and putting oneself in his position is not wrong. It is a fundamental task of diplomacy and something entirely different from supporting him.'
Her remarks come amid an ongoing debate in Germany over its policy toward Russia. The term 'Putinversteher' is frequently used to criticize those who advocate for diplomatic engagement with Moscow, portraying them as sympathetic to the Kremlin.
Speaking on European security concerns, Merkel warned that failing to address Russia's interests could increase the risk of future conflicts. 'There is no justification for him [Putin] invading another country, but the discussion about Russia's interests must be allowed.'
Merkel was a key mediator in the Minsk agreements, a 2015 road map negotiated along with then-French President Francois Hollande, which was officially intended to reintegrate the Donbass region into Ukraine. However, after the 2022 escalation, both Merkel and Hollande admitted that the accords were never meant to bring peace, but rather to buy time for Kiev to strengthen its military with NATO's help.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
European NATO states to continue arming Ukraine
Western European leaders have issued a statement backing US President Donald Trump's diplomatic push to end the Ukraine conflict – while also reaffirming their intention to further arm Kiev and seek to bring it into NATO, the very issues Russia has cited as among the root causes of the conflict. The declaration follows the summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, where the two discussed steps toward ending the Ukraine conflict. Although no deal was announced, both sides characterized the talks as highly productive. Trump said he would speak with Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky in Washington on Monday. The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Poland, Finland, as well as the presidents of the EU Council and European Commission, praised the peace efforts in a statement published on Saturday, but vowed to continue providing military aid to Kiev. 'Our support to Ukraine will continue. We are determined to do more to keep Ukraine strong in order to achieve an end to the fighting,' they said. The statement rejects any notion of a territorial compromise, stressing that it was 'up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory.' Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of a 'land swap' between Russia and Ukraine as part of a deal. The European leaders added that they were ready to provide Kiev security guarantees via a so-called 'coalition of the willing' – a France- and UK-led effort to deploy a NATO 'reassurance force' in Ukraine, an initiative that Moscow has staunchly opposed. 'No limitations should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to EU and NATO,' the statement says. Just a day earlier, Trump ruled out Kiev's membership in the US-led military bloc. Security guarantees for Ukraine will not come 'in the form of NATO, because you know there are certain things that aren't going to happen,' he told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday. Moscow has long insisted that Ukraine must commit to neutrality, stay out of NATO, undergo demilitarization and denazification, and recognize the status of the new Russian regions.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
The Alaska summit was a success. The challenge is to make it last
Do not expect Western mainstream media, NATO-EU Europe's politicians, or the Zelensky regime and its surrogates to admit it, but there is no doubt that the Alaska summit between the Russian and American presidents was a success. Not a breakthrough either, but clearly also more than an 'it's-good-they're-at-least-talking' event. This was not comparable to the Geneva meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and then US President Joe Biden in 2021, which was doomed to fail due to the Biden administration's hubristic intransigence. Fundamentally, both sides – no, not only one – have scored what Western pundits love to call 'wins': The US has shown the EU-NATO Europeans that it and it alone decides when and how it talks to Russia and with what aims. The European vassals find this hard to grasp because it's an application of genuine sovereignty, something they don't have or want anymore. Russia, for its part, has shown that it can negotiate while the fighting continues and that it is under no legal or moral obligation – or any practical pressure – to stop fighting before negotiations show results it finds satisfying. The fact that we know so little – at this point at least – about the specific, detailed content of the summit talks and their outcomes is, actually, a sign of seriousness. That is how diplomacy worth the name works: calmly, confidentially, and patiently taking the time to achieve a decent, robust result. In that context, US President Donald Trump's explicit refusal to make public what points of disagreement remain and have prevented a breakthrough for now is a very good sign: Clearly, he believes that they can be cleared up in the near future and, thus, deserve discretion. Yet we do have a few hints allowing for some plausible guessing about the summit's vibe: Not surprisingly, both leaders made no secret of their respect and even guarded sympathy for each other. That is – and has always been – a good thing, too. But in and of itself that cannot carry an agreement about Ukraine or a broader policy of normalization (or perhaps even a new détente, if we are all very lucky). For that, both Trump and Putin are too serious about adhering to national interests. More tellingly, immediately after the meeting, Trump used a Fox News interview to state three important things. He confirmed that there was 'much progress,' acknowledged that the Russian president wants peace, and told Zelensky 'to make a deal.' When Putin, at a short press conference, warned Brussels and Kiev not to try to sabotage the talks, Trump did not contradict the Russian leader. The commemorative events accompanying the summit carried more than one message. Publicly honoring the American-Russian (then Soviet) alliance of World War Two obviously implied that the two countries then cooperated intensely across a deep ideological divide, which, today, does not even exist anymore. But arguably, there was a second, subtle message here: Another – if often unjustly 'forgotten' (in the words of historian Rana Mitter) – ally of World War Two was, after all, China. In that sense, Putin's deliberate and repeated invocations of the memory of Washington-Moscow cooperation was also yet another signal that Russia would not be available for any 'reverse Kissinger' fantasies of splitting the Moscow-Beijing partnership. By now, Trump has had phone conversations with Kiev, as well as EU capitals. There, too, we know little. Yet it is interesting to note that nothing we have heard about these conversations indicates another change of mind on Trump's side. For now at least, the American president seems to leave little hope to European bellicists and the regime in Kiev that he will turn against Moscow again. There are reports that Trump may have shifted his position toward that of Russia, preferring talks about peace to the Ukrainian demand to focus on only a ceasefire first. This makes sense, especially since they and the mainstream media aligned with them cannot stop trying to lecture Trump on, in essence, how gullible they consider him. It is to be hoped that the US president has had enough of Zelensky, Bolton, the New York Times and co. telling him publicly that he is a fool about to be duped by the big bad Russians. The adequate punishment for these offensive inanities is to make triple sure their authors find themselves entirely irrelevant. This is the single most important question about the future of what has been successfully begun (or really, publicly continued) at the Alaska summit. Russia has been exceedingly consistent and is giving no sign that it intends to become less predictable. But the West has been fractious and volatile. This is the moment when Washington has to stick to a course of normalization with Moscow regardless of what its European clients and the Ukrainian regime want. Ironically, not listening much to them, if need be, is best for their people as well.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Trump-Zelensky call ‘wasn't easy'
The phone call between US President Donald Trump and Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky after the Alaska summit on Friday 'wasn't easy,' Axios correspondent Barak Ravid claimed on Saturday, citing a source with direct knowledge. Key European leaders later joined the call as well. According to Ravid, Trump spoke with Zelensky for about an hour. Also on the line were Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff, both of whom had earlier taken part in the talks with the Russian delegation. The leaders of the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Poland, as well as NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, later joined the call, which lasted another 30 minutes, according to the journalist. Ravid described the call as 'not easy,' though he did not elaborate on this, adding only that Trump insisted that 'a fast peace deal is better than a ceasefire.' The US president later confirmed the sentiment, writing: 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Zelensky said that during the phone call with Trump the two agreed that he would come on Monday to Washington to discuss in person the outcome of the summit. Ukraine and its Western backers have for months been pushing for a temporary ceasefire. While Russia has never ruled out the idea, it has argued that such a step would allow Kiev to receive more Western weapons, continue forced mobilization, and recover its losses at a time when Russian troops are pressing their advantage on the battlefield. Meanwhile, both Putin and Trump praised the Alaska talks as productive. The US president said that they moved closer to resolving the conflict while urging Zelensky to 'make a deal.'
