Is Germany Today a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? (EN-GR)

source – slpress.gr – (please follow the link for the original in Greek)

By Helen Savaki  (*)

Chancellor Friedrich Merz, leader of the German Christian Democrats, a protégé of Schäuble and an opponent of Merkel, is making every effort to play a leading role on the European political stage. It should be noted that in 2018, when German law enforcement authorities investigated BlackRock for a possible role in the fake tax refund fraud (the Cum-Ex affair), it emerged that Merz was a non-executive director of BlackRock in Germany.

Merz recently made it clear that Germany now intends to replace the United States as the guarantor of European defense. For this reason, Germany must consult with the two European nuclear powers, Britain and France, in order to readjust—under “German supervision”—the nuclear umbrella against Russia.

One hopes that Macron remembers that Charles de Gaulle decided to build the bomb not so much because he feared the Soviet Union (which no longer exists) but primarily to ensure France’s security vis-à-vis Germany. In the same spirit, Merz stated that, if necessary, NATO should be replaced by another collective defense structure, even with Turkey’s participation. At the same time, he hinted that he would allow Ukraine to be reinforced with advanced offensive weapons such as Taurus missiles, which his predecessor Olaf Scholz had refused to supply to the Zelensky regime.

Given Germany’s current rearmament, one wonders how Merz’s statements are perceived by the rest of Europe, since the lurking danger is the revival of German militarism. Does Germany believe it can confront Russia militarily? That sounds ridiculous. Does it think it can confront the United States or China militarily? Even more comical. Therefore, Germany can only confront other European countries militarily—and it would not be the first time…

In December 2025, Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs addressed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in an open letter, urging him to learn history so as not to distort it. He reminded him that in 1954, the Soviet Union proposed joining NATO in order to maintain peace in Europe. However, NATO countries rejected the Soviet proposal. In his letter, Sachs explains to Merz that since 1990, Russia’s fundamental security concerns have repeatedly been violated.

Germany Takes the Lead in the New Cold War

At the end of the Cold War, in the context of the reunification of East and West Germany, German governments gave the Soviets—and subsequently Russian leaders—very clear assurances that NATO would not expand one inch to the east. Yet NATO did expand after the end of the Cold War, incorporating countries of the former Eastern Bloc, despite Western promises to the contrary and despite Russia’s objections.

Sachs also reminds Merz that in 1999, Germany participated in NATO’s bombing of Serbia without authorization from the UN Security Council. Thus, the message to Russia was that NATO uses force beyond its territory while ignoring Russian objections. Furthermore, in 2008, Germany recognized Kosovo’s independence, an act that undermined the principle of territorial integrity.

Sachs also notes that Germany raised no objection when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, nor when it provocatively deployed missile defense systems on Russia’s borders. He continues by stating that the West’s effort to expand NATO into Ukraine and Georgia, with an official declaration at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, violated all of Russia’s red lines.

In his letter, Sachs reminds Merz that in February 2014 Berlin, together with Paris and Warsaw, mediated the Minsk I agreement between Ukrainian President Yanukovych and the opposition. The violent overthrow that followed and the new government that emerged were instigated by the United States. Germany immediately recognized and supported the new coup regime, abandoning the Minsk I agreement that it itself had guaranteed.

As for the supposedly “corrective” Minsk II agreement of 2015, which Ukraine failed to implement for seven consecutive years, Germany was once again supposedly a guarantor power. In short, Germany did not ensure the implementation of the political provisions of either agreement. Indeed, former Chancellor Merkel acknowledged that the Minsk agreements served as a delay tactic, allowing Ukraine to be militarily strengthened by the West.

Within this framework, Germany’s increasingly harsh rhetoric and calls for ever more weapons to Ukraine essentially aim at erasing the recent past from the memory of European citizens and ensuring a permanent confrontation with Russia. Sachs emphasizes:
“Enough with the propaganda. Stop speaking as if war is inevitable or virtuous. Stop misdirecting strategic thinking with alliances against Russia. Start engaging seriously in diplomacy.”
And Sachs concludes:
“Most importantly, Chancellor Merz, learn history—and be honest about it.”

Here, I would add that, given the possibility of a Trump invasion of Greenland and the EU’s inability to deter, Merz should retract his propaganda—if not turn to Russia for protection of Greenland against the United States.

Nazism Beneath the Mask

However, Germany’s rearmament problem concerns the entire planet. Germany is not only responsible for the 130 million victims of the two world wars it caused, but it was also never denazified, according to the findings of Zachary and Katharina Gallant in their revealing book “Nazis All the Way Down: The Myth of the Moral Modern Germany” (2023).

By following the money, the Gallants describe the fraud of Germany’s supposed denazification—a propaganda narrative that allows the German public to avoid responsibility and not pursue the Nazis and their descendants who prosper thanks to stolen wealth. The authors argue that the modern German narrative claiming that the burden of Nazism was removed from every aspect of German society, leaving behind a progressive democracy, is pure propaganda. It is also a myth that postwar Germany’s economic miracle resulted from hard work and ingenuity.

Tracing paths of dirty money, the authors show that German society and the economy were built—and continue to be built—on Holocaust profits and on the theft of assets by the Nazi war machine. Many of the country’s major corporations operate with wealth accumulated by profiteering for the Nazi regime. The legacy of Nazism continues to influence German society and politics. They describe one of the “largest redistributions of wealth in modern history.”

The Gallants also highlight the role played by the United States in allowing Nazi profiteers to retain their positions of power. They further note that the U.S. Senate Budget Committee continues to investigate Credit Suisse, which systematically laundered money for the Third Reich and covered up its collaboration with the heirs of Nazi Germany.

In conclusion, I would add that if the victorious powers after World War I had divided Germany into two, World War II would likely have been avoided. Given all of the above, the reunification of Germany was a major mistake—and remains one.

(*) Helen Savaki is Professor Emerita of Medicine at the University of Crete and an expert contractor for evaluating research projects in the European Union. She is also serving as the President of the International Committee of German Debts to Greece.