Views: 15
Merz vows Taurus missiles for Ukraine to counter Russia’s threat
On April 14, 2025, Friedrich Merz, Germany’s incoming chancellor and leader of the Christian Democratic Union, signaled a potential shift in Berlin’s approach to the war in Ukraine, expressing readiness to supply Kyiv with long-range Taurus cruise missiles.
Speaking to Germany’s ARD network, Merz noted that allies like the United Kingdom, France, and the United States are already providing similar weapons, arguing that Ukraine needs the means to take a more proactive stance against Russian aggression. “Our European partners are already delivering cruise missiles. The British are doing it, the French are doing it, and the Americans are doing it after all,” Merz said, as reported by the Financial Times.
Yet, with Germany’s coalition politics still a hurdle, the path to delivering these advanced weapons remains uncertain. What would it mean for Ukraine’s fight, and for Europe’s broader security, if Germany joins its allies in providing such capabilities?
The Taurus missile, officially known as the Taurus KEPD 350, is a precision-guided, air-launched cruise missile developed by Taurus Systems GmbH, a joint venture between Germany’s MBDA Deutschland and Sweden’s Saab Dynamics.
The missile flies at low altitudes, often below 50 meters, using terrain-following radar to evade air defenses. Its 480-kilogram MEPHISTO warhead, a dual-stage design, can penetrate hardened targets like bunkers before detonating inside, making it ideal for destroying fortified command posts, ammunition depots, or critical infrastructure.
The guidance system combines GPS, inertial navigation, and infrared imaging, ensuring pinpoint accuracy even in contested environments. Unlike the British Storm Shadow or French SCALP-EG, which Ukraine already employs, the Taurus offers a slightly longer range and a unique warhead optimized for deeply buried targets.
Compared to the U.S.-supplied ATACMS, which has a shorter range of around 300 kilometers, the Taurus provides greater reach, though it lacks the hypersonic speed of Russia’s Kinzhal missile or China’s DF-21D.
These aging Soviet-era aircraft, fitted with adapted pylons, have proven effective for launching long-range strikes. The Taurus could enable Ukraine to target Russian logistics hubs, airfields, or naval facilities in occupied territories like Crimea, disrupting Moscow’s ability to sustain its operations.
For instance, a strike on a supply depot 400 kilometers from the front could force Russia to reposition assets further east, stretching its already strained logistics.
Germany’s hesitation in supplying Taurus missiles stems from a complex interplay of domestic politics and strategic caution. Under outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Berlin consistently rejected Kyiv’s requests, citing fears that long-range strikes could escalate the conflict and draw Germany closer to direct involvement.
Scholz argued that providing weapons capable of hitting deep inside Russia was a step too far for a nation wary of repeating its historical entanglements in European wars. Merz, however, sees the issue differently. His push for Taurus deliveries reflects a broader ambition to position Germany as a more assertive leader in European defense, especially at a time when U.S. commitment to NATO is under scrutiny.
During a February 2025 debate, Merz criticized Scholz’s caution, stating on ARD, “By limiting the range of the weapons we provide, we are forcing Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back.” His stance aligns with a growing consensus among Germany’s defense establishment, including figures like Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, who has privately supported more robust aid to Ukraine.
The Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces, also face practical constraints. With only about 600 Taurus missiles in its inventory, transferring even 100—as speculated by Euromaidan Press—would require careful consideration of Germany’s own defense needs. MBDA, the missile’s manufacturer, could ramp up production, but this would take months, if not years, given the complexity of the system.
The Zeitenwende, Germany’s 2022 pledge to overhaul its military, has already strained budgets, with €100 billion allocated for modernization. Diverting resources to Ukraine could spark debate among voters already skeptical of increased defense spending.
The United States, after initial reluctance, began providing ATACMS in 2024, though with limits on their use inside Russia. Merz’s proposal to follow suit would align Germany with its allies but could provoke Moscow. Russian military doctrine emphasizes rapid escalation in response to perceived threats, as seen in its 2022 nuclear saber-rattling.
A 2023 report by the Institute for the Study of War noted that Russia has bolstered air defenses in Crimea and western Russia, deploying S-400 systems to counter Western-supplied missiles. Taurus strikes could force Russia to redistribute these assets, weakening other fronts, but they might also prompt retaliatory cyberattacks or targeted strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, as seen in Russia’s winter 2024-2025 drone campaigns.
Historically, Germany’s role in arming Ukraine has been significant but cautious. Since Russia’s 2022 invasion, Berlin has delivered €28 billion in aid, including Leopard 2 tanks and IRIS-T air defense systems, making it Ukraine’s second-largest donor after the United States, per the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
Unlike then, however, today’s Germany faces a Russia less open to negotiation, as evidenced by Moscow’s rejection of a U.S.-proposed ceasefire in March 2025, according to Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha.
The global ramifications of Merz’s stance extend beyond Europe. China, a key Russian partner, has closely monitored Western arms supplies to Ukraine. A 2024 RAND Corporation study suggested Beijing views European missile transfers as a test of NATO’s resolve, potentially influencing its calculus on Taiwan.
By advocating for Taurus deliveries, Merz may be signaling that Europe can shoulder more of Ukraine’s defense burden, reducing reliance on the U.S. that has frozen aid since January 2025, as reported by the Kyiv Independent.
What remains unclear is whether Merz’s rhetoric reflects concrete plans or political posturing. Germany has a history of signaling bold moves only to backtrack under pressure. In 2023, then-Finance Minister Christian Lindner briefly supported Taurus transfers before Scholz overruled him, per the Financial Times.
Merz himself has tempered expectations, noting in February 2025 at the Munich Security Conference that any decision would require coordination with allies like the United States. Training Ukrainian crews to operate Taurus systems could take four months, he told Bild in December 2024, suggesting deliveries might not occur until late 2025.
Another layer of intrigue lies in what’s unsaid. Could Germany already be laying the groundwork for Taurus transfers? Ukraine’s success with Storm Shadow suggests its forces are adept at integrating Western systems, but Taurus requires specialized maintenance and targeting data.
Unofficial channels—perhaps involving NATO advisors—might already be preparing Ukrainian infrastructure, though no public evidence confirms this. The Bundeswehr’s own needs add complexity.
The debate over Taurus missiles also reflects broader questions about Europe’s security architecture. Merz’s coalition agreement, announced on April 9, 2025, emphasizes a stronger European defense, including relaxed debt rules to fund military spending, according to the Financial Times. This aligns with his February 2025 call for Europe to reduce dependence on the U.S., a stance echoed by French President Emmanuel Macron.
Yet, coordinating with Washington remains critical. The U.S. has supplied Ukraine with less than 40 ATACMS missiles, which ran out in January 2025, per the Associated Press. If Taurus deliveries materialize, they could fill this gap, but only if Germany navigates coalition politics and secures allied buy-in.
Russia’s likely response adds another dimension. Moscow has adapted to Western missiles by dispersing supply lines and fortifying key sites, as seen in satellite imagery of Crimea’s airfields in 2024.
The Kremlin’s April 2025 talks with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, reported by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, indicate it’s open to diplomacy but unwilling to concede ground, complicating the strategic calculus.
For Ukraine, the Taurus could shift the battlefield dynamic, but it’s not a silver bullet. Kyiv’s forces have shown resilience, downing 43 of 55 Russian drones in a single night in February 2025, per Ukrainska Pravda. Yet, with Russian forces holding 18% of Ukrainian territory, per the Institute for the Study of War, long-range strikes alone won’t reverse gains.
From my perspective, Merz’s push for Taurus deliveries is a calculated move, blending military pragmatism with political ambition. It signals Germany’s intent to lead in Europe while testing the waters with a fractious coalition.
The missile’s technical prowess could give Ukraine an edge, but only if paired with robust intelligence and relaxed restrictions. The bigger question is whether this marks a turning point for Germany’s role in NATO or a fleeting promise overshadowed by domestic realities.
If Merz overcomes coalition hurdles, he could redefine Berlin’s place in global security. But if delays persist, the Taurus debate risks becoming another chapter in Germany’s cautious dance with history. Will Merz’s vision hold, or will politics blunt its impact? Only time will tell.
Bulgarian Military