German Chancellor Merz's Berlin Speech: The Positioning and Challenges of the EU as a New Force in Power Politics

On January 29, in the plenary hall of the German Bundestag in Berlin, Chancellor Friedrich Merz stood before the podium and read a government statement on foreign and security policy to the assembled members of parliament. This statement quickly transcended the scope of German domestic politics, becoming a clear signpost for Europe and even transatlantic relations. Merz's core message was straightforward and powerful: in an era where a new world order defined by great power competition is rapidly taking shape, Europe must learn to speak the language of power politics and shape itself into an independent force. He declared that the European Union should become a normative alternative to imperialism and authoritarianism, but this requires Europe to prove itself in three key areas: security, economy, and solidarity. This speech took place against the backdrop of the unresolved aftermath of the Greenland crisis and widespread European outrage over former U.S. President Trump's controversial remarks regarding NATO allies' contributions in Afghanistan. Its timing and content together outline a new contour of the debate on European strategic autonomy.

The Strategic Context and Core Demands of the Berlin Speech

Merz's speech is not an isolated event. One week prior, he had set the tone for this address at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he warned that a new era has begun—a world of great powers built on authority, strength, and, when necessary, force. The Berlin speech represents a deepening and concretization of this series of foreign policy statements. From the perspective of geopolitical drivers, the speech directly responds to two recent sources of pressure: first, the uncertainty in U.S. policy. The tariff threats against the European Union, revived during the Trump administration, resurfaced in the Greenland issue, where U.S. claims over this autonomous territory under Denmark forced the 27 EU member states to demonstrate rare and swift unity, ultimately compelling the U.S. to back down. Merz described Europe's coordinated response during this crisis as a moment of joy in feeling a sense of self-respect and viewed it as a case of Europe demonstrating strategic will.

The second is a reflection on the unequal nature of transatlantic relations. Trump's recent remarks about non-U.S. NATO troops staying away from the front lines during the war in Afghanistan touched a sensitive nerve in Europe, particularly in Germany. In his speech, Merz explicitly countered this by mentioning the 59 German Bundeswehr soldiers who died in the Afghanistan operation, as well as over 100 severely wounded, emphasizing that we will not allow this mission, which we also carried out in the interests of our ally the United States, to be scorned and belittled today. This direct rebuttal contrasts with the cautious wording typically used by German leaders on similar issues in the past. The deeper reason is that Europe, especially Germany, has been fully exposed in its strategic dependence on the United States in the fields of technology and defense capabilities, particularly regarding the nuclear umbrella. Merz acknowledged that Europe will still need to rely on American nuclear deterrence for the foreseeable future, but he also left room for exploring Europe's own nuclear deterrence options, describing them as a complement to the nuclear sharing arrangement with the United States, similar to the current roles of France and the United Kingdom.

The Three Pillars of the "Word of Power": Security, Economy, and Unity.

Merz outlined three practical areas that must be consolidated for Europe to become a strong power, forming the policy framework of his speech. The first pillar is security autonomy. He explicitly stated that Europe must take security into its own hands. This not only means increasing defense spending but also points to reducing dependence on the United States in key technological areas and defense capabilities. Specifically, this involves promoting the integration of Europe's defense industry, strengthening internal EU military cooperation mechanisms (such as the Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO), and cautiously exploring the sensitive issue of Europeanizing nuclear deterrence. Although Germany itself is bound by the Two Plus Four Treaty and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and cannot possess nuclear weapons, Merz indicated that discussions on joint nuclear deterrence with other European countries are possible, which clearly places France at the forefront of the dialogue.

The second pillar is economic competitiveness. Merz points out that the widening growth gap between Europe and the United States and China must now be reversed. He calls for reforming EU rules that may hinder economic development and will focus on enhancing economic competitiveness at the special EU summit in Brussels on February 12. The goal is to ensure Europe does not fall behind in global economic competition by simplifying regulations, incentivizing innovation, and investing in future technologies. This demand reflects the deep concerns of German industry regarding the risks of deindustrialization and the costs of the green transition.

The third pillar, which Merz repeatedly emphasizes, is European unity. He defines unity itself as a factor of strength in the world. The Greenland crisis, in which the EU unanimously opposed U.S. tariff threats and proved effective, serves as his latest example of unity as power. Merz strongly advocates for the swift implementation of the EU's trade agreement with Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay) and praises the historic trade and partnership agreement reached with India this week, both seen as evidence of the EU's ability to act with a unified voice and expand its global partnership network. He even criticized in his speech the actions of German Green Party members in the European Parliament, who joined forces with the Left Party and the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany in an attempt to block the Mercosur agreement, calling it highly incomprehensible, which highlights the political difficulty of maintaining internal policy consistency.

The Paradox of Positioning: Alternatives, Partners Rather Than Vassals

There is an inherent tension in Merz's defined identity for Europe, a tension that precisely reflects the complexity of Europe's current strategic situation. On one hand, he positions the EU as a normative alternative to imperialism and authoritarianism, a diplomatic appeal based on values and rules aimed at attracting democracies or emerging markets in the Global South that are seeking development paths. He believes that Europe has something to contribute to global partners both economically and ideologically, with open markets, free trade, and a rules-based order remaining at the core of its appeal.

On the other hand, when defining the relationship with the United States, he used very precise wording: as democracies, we are partners and allies, not subordinates. The phrase "partners, not vassals" quickly became the core headline in international media coverage. It draws a red line, asserting Europe's determination to pursue equal status within the transatlantic alliance. Merz stated that the hand of cooperation will always be extended to the United States, but it must be based on this guiding principle. This marks an increasingly firm response from Germany and Europe to American discourse, evolving from the proclamation during the Merkel era that "the times when we could completely rely on others are over" to more specific and confrontational diplomatic rhetoric.

However, the balance between pursuing sovereignty and maintaining the alliance is extremely delicate. As Jens Spahn, the parliamentary group leader of the CDU/CSU, emphasized after Merz's speech: Without the United States, there is no security for Europe. Without the United States, there will be no ceasefire in Ukraine. This serves as a reminder that, regardless of Europe's ambitions, the core of its hard security will remain inseparable from NATO—and thus from the United States—for the foreseeable future. Merz himself also acknowledged that transatlantic trust still holds value to this day. Therefore, Europe's challenge lies in effectively building and demonstrating its capacity for independent action without excessively undermining its traditional security cornerstone—the relationship with the United States. This oscillation between strategic autonomy and transatlantic solidarity will continue to define Europe's foreign and security policy debates in the coming years.

Challenges Ahead: Bridging the Gap from Rhetoric to Capability

Merkel's Berlin speech successfully set an agenda and clearly articulated an ambition for Europe in a turbulent world. However, translating words of strength into actual power still presents multiple daunting challenges for the European Union. First, there is a gap between resources and willingness. Significantly enhancing defense capabilities requires sustained massive investments, yet EU member states do not always align on fiscal priorities. Establishing European technological sovereignty entails large-scale, high-risk investments in critical areas such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing, and engaging in direct competition with both China and the United States.

Secondly, there are obstacles in systems and decision-making. The 27 member states of the European Union need to overcome complex internal coordination mechanisms to take unified action on foreign policy. Even though they can quickly unite under external pressure such as in Greenland, it remains challenging to reach and maintain a unified stance on issues more closely related to the core interests of member states, such as China policy, energy security, or immigration. The unity advocated by Merz is an eternal goal, not an established reality.

Finally, there is a shift in strategic culture. Europe, particularly Germany, has long adhered to the paradigm of a civilizing power in the post-war era, emphasizing civilian means, multilateralism, and rule-shaping. Now, learning to speak the language of power politics means that the entire political elite and the public need to embrace a more realist mindset, one that prioritizes hard power and geopolitical maneuvering. This transformation will not happen overnight and may spark controversy in domestic politics.

Merz's speech is, to some extent, a continuation and deepening of German Chancellor Scholz's era-defining address following the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in 2022. That speech marked a fundamental shift in Germany's security policy; Merz's remarks, meanwhile, attempt to position Europe's role in the new normal of great-power competition. It is both a response to external pressures and a call for internal mobilization. As the world faces biting winds, whether Europe chooses to huddle under its old umbrella or genuinely forge its own shield and direction—Merz has given his answer. However, the final outcome will not be determined by a single speech in the Berlin Bundestag, but by the difficult choices European nations make in the coming months and years—in Brussels, in their respective capitals, and through tangible defense investments, trade negotiations, and diplomatic mediation. Europe's appeal as an alternative will ultimately be proven by its capacity for action, not by the strength of its declarations.