Ukraine shocks with call for 115 aircraft and $98B from Germany.
In a bold move that has sent ripples through European geopolitics, Andriy Melnyk, Ukraine’s permanent representative to the United Nations and former ambassador to Germany, has called on Germany’s incoming chancellor, Friedrich Merz, to transfer 30 percent of the Bundeswehr’s military aviation and ground equipment to Ukraine’s armed forces.
This shocking request, made as Merz prepares to lead a new coalition government of the Christian Democratic Union [CDU], Christian Social Union [CSU], and Social Democratic Party [SPD] starting May 6, 2025, includes 45 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, 30 Tornado aircraft, 25 NH90 helicopters, 15 Eurocopter Tigers, 100 Leopard 2 tanks, and a range of other advanced systems, alongside 150 Taurus cruise missiles.
Melnyk also urged Germany to allocate 0.5 percent of its GDP—roughly 86 billion euros [$97,8 billion] by 2029—to support Ukraine’s military needs. This unprecedented demand, framed as a litmus test for Germany’s commitment to Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing aggression, raises profound questions about NATO’s unity, Germany’s military readiness, and the future of European security.
The call comes at a pivotal moment. Germany, Europe’s economic powerhouse, has long faced criticism for its cautious approach to military aid for Ukraine, particularly under outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who repeatedly blocked the delivery of Taurus missiles citing fears of escalation.
Merz, by contrast, has signaled a more assertive stance, expressing openness to supplying Taurus missiles in coordination with European allies. Melnyk’s request, however, goes far beyond missiles, envisioning a massive transfer of assets that would reshape the Bundeswehr’s capabilities while potentially transforming Ukraine’s battlefield dynamics.
The audacity of the proposal—delivered by a diplomat known for his blunt rhetoric—suggests not just a plea for aid but a strategic challenge to Germany’s new leadership and the broader Western alliance.
At the heart of Melnyk’s request is the Eurofighter Typhoon, a twin-engine, multirole fighter jet developed by a consortium of European nations, including Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain.
The Eurofighter, in service with the Luftwaffe since 2004, is among the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, capable of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions with a top speed of Mach 2 and a combat radius exceeding 1,000 miles. Equipped with the CAPTOR radar and a suite of precision-guided munitions, including the Brimstone missile and Paveway IV laser-guided bombs, it offers unmatched versatility.
Germany’s current fleet numbers approximately 138 Eurofighters, with 45 representing a significant portion of its operational and reserve capacity. Transferring such a number would require not only political will but also a logistical overhaul, as Ukraine’s air force, trained primarily on Soviet-era MiG-29s and Su-27s, lacks the infrastructure and personnel to operate and maintain these sophisticated jets.
The Eurofighter’s complexity underscores the challenges of Melnyk’s proposal. Unlike older platforms like the Tornado, a 1970s-era strike aircraft nearing retirement in Germany, the Eurofighter demands extensive pilot training, ground crew expertise, and a robust supply chain for spare parts and munitions.
For comparison, Poland, a NATO ally with a more modernized air force, took years to fully integrate its F-16 fleet after transitioning from Soviet systems. Ukraine’s air force, battered by three years of war, would face even steeper hurdles. The jets’ advanced avionics and maintenance requirements could strain Ukraine’s resources, potentially rendering the transfer symbolic rather than immediately impactful.
Yet, the Eurofighter’s capabilities—superior to Russia’s Su-35 in maneuverability and sensor fusion—could theoretically give Ukraine a qualitative edge in contested airspace, assuming the necessary support systems were in place.
Beyond the Eurofighter, Melnyk’s list includes a dizzying array of equipment: 30 Tornado jets, designed for low-level penetration strikes; 25 NH90 transport helicopters, used for troop movement and medical evacuation; 15 Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters, equipped with anti-tank missiles; 100 Leopard 2 tanks, among the world’s most advanced main battle tanks; 115 Puma infantry fighting vehicles; 130 Marder armored personnel carriers; 130 GTK Boxer wheeled armored vehicles; 300 Fuchs transport vehicles; and 20 MARS-II multiple launch rocket systems, Germany’s equivalent to the U.S. HIMARS.
The inclusion of 150 Taurus missiles, with a 310-mile range and stealth features, is particularly contentious as Scholz’s refusal to supply them sparked heated debate in Germany. The Taurus, comparable to the British Storm Shadow and U.S. ATACMS, can strike deep into Russian territory, raising fears of escalation among German lawmakers wary of becoming a direct party to the conflict.
The historical context of Germany’s military support for Ukraine provides a critical perspective. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Germany has emerged as Kyiv’s second-largest donor after the United States, providing approximately 28 billion euros in military aid, including Leopard 1 and 2 tanks, IRIS-T air defense systems, and Gepard anti-aircraft guns.
Yet, Berlin’s hesitancy on certain systems, notably the Taurus, has drawn criticism from Ukraine and allies like the United States, United Kingdom, and France, which have supplied long-range missiles. Scholz’s SPD argued that Taurus deliveries could make Germany belligerent, a stance that clashed with the Greens and Free Democrats [FDP], who favored immediate transfers.
Merz, during his December 2024 visit to Kyiv, criticized Scholz’s caution, stating, “We want your army to be capable of hitting military bases in Russia. Not the civilian population, not infrastructure, but the military targets from which your country is being attacked”. His openness to Taurus deliveries, conditional on European coordination, contrasts sharply with Scholz’s restraint, setting the stage for Melnyk’s bold escalation.
Politically, Melnyk’s request places Merz in a precarious position. The CDU/CSU-SPD coalition, formed after the February 23, 2025, snap election, is still navigating its early days. Merz, who secured 28.5 percent of the vote, has pledged to strengthen Germany’s defense and support for Ukraine while maintaining fiscal discipline.
However, the SPD, led by Lars Klingbeil, remains cautious, with many members opposing Taurus deliveries due to escalation fears. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, a vocal Ukraine supporter, has privately favored Taurus transfers, but his influence within the SPD is limited.
Melnyk’s call for 30 percent of the Bundeswehr’s assets—far beyond what even the most hawkish German politicians have proposed—appears designed to pressure Merz into a defining stance, potentially exposing coalition fault lines.
The economic implications are equally daunting. Allocating 0.5 percent of Germany’s GDP, projected at 4.43 trillion euros in 2025, would commit Berlin to 22 billion euros annually through 2029, dwarfing current aid levels.
Germany’s 2025 budget already includes 4 billion euros for Ukraine, down from 8 billion in 2024, reflecting fiscal constraints. Merz has proposed a 500-billion-euro fund for defense and infrastructure, partly by easing Germany’s debt brake, but this plan prioritizes domestic needs like Bundeswehr modernization.
Diverting such a sum to Ukraine could spark a backlash among German voters, many of whom, according to a January 2025 DW report, prioritize economic stability over increased aid. Thomas Erndl, a CSU deputy, noted, “The opinion has become entrenched among the population that arms deliveries fuel war while stopping deliveries slow it down.”
Melnyk’s motivations merit scrutiny. Known for his provocative style, he has a history of pushing Germany’s boundaries, once calling Scholz an “offended liver sausage” for delaying aid. His current request, described by some analysts as deliberately maximalist, may aim to frame any compromise—such as Taurus deliveries—as a victory for Ukraine.
Former Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Melnyk himself predicted in November 2024 that Merz’s election would secure Taurus missiles, stating, “I cannot imagine in any scenario of this coalition, even if the Social Democrats become a ‘minor partner,’ that they will block it”.
Yet, the scale of his latest demand suggests a broader strategy: to test the West’s resolve as U.S. support wanes under President Donald Trump, who has prioritized direct talks with Moscow and reduced aid to Kyiv.
The geopolitical stakes are immense. If Germany were to agree, even partially, it could galvanize other NATO members to increase aid, reinforcing the alliance’s commitment to Ukraine.
The United Kingdom and France, already supplying Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles, might welcome a stronger German role, though coordination remains critical, as Merz emphasized in April 2025: “The delivery of cruise missiles must be decided in the European Union”. Conversely, Russia has warned that such transfers would cross a “red line,” with Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov condemning Western arms deliveries as escalatory.
A March 2025 Bloomberg report noted Russia’s rejection of a U.S.-proposed ceasefire, signaling Moscow’s intransigence. China, observing NATO’s cohesion, may also draw lessons for its own strategic calculations, particularly regarding Taiwan.
The human dimension adds urgency. Ukrainian soldiers, facing relentless Russian drone and missile strikes, have expressed frustration at the lack of long-range systems like Taurus. A Ukrainian officer, quoted anonymously by the Kyiv Independent in February 2025, said, “Every day we wait, we lose ground. Taurus could hit their supply lines, but we’re still begging”.
In Germany, public sentiment is mixed. A Berlin resident, interviewed by DW in January 2025, voiced concern: “We want to help Ukraine, but how much can we give without weakening ourselves?” This tension—between solidarity and self-preservation—defines the debate Merz must navigate.
From a U.S. perspective, Melnyk’s request underscores the shifting burden of Ukraine’s defense to Europe. With Trump’s administration engaging Russia directly, as evidenced by envoy Steve Witkoff’s April 2025 meeting with Vladimir Putin, the United States appears less willing to lead.
Germany, under Merz, may fill this gap, but not without cost. The Bundeswehr, long underfunded, has only 180,000 personnel and struggles to meet NATO’s 2 percent GDP defense spending target. Transferring 30 percent of its assets could undermine Germany’s own security, a risk Merz must weigh against his pro-Ukraine rhetoric.
In the end, Melnyk’s gambit is less about immediate results and more about shaping the narrative. By demanding the improbable, he ensures that even modest concessions—like Taurus missiles or increased funding—seem like progress. Merz caught between coalition pressures, public skepticism, and NATO expectations, faces a defining test.
Will he seize this moment to assert Germany’s leadership, or will domestic constraints and Russian threats force a more cautious path? The answer may determine not only Ukraine’s fate but the resilience of the Western alliance in an increasingly fractious world.