Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy held critical talks in Berlin with newly appointed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, just days after Merz indicated a potential shift in Western missile policy, lifting range restrictions and permitting Ukraine to strike military targets deep inside Russian territory.
Merz’s remarks came on Monday amid a sharp escalation in hostilities, with Russia launching intense aerial bombardments and both sides engaging in retaliatory drone warfare. His statement reignited hope in Kyiv that Germany might finally approve the transfer of its long-requested Taurus long-range cruise missiles, which Ukrainian defense officials believe could significantly alter the operational efficacy of the conflict.
However, during a joint appearance with Zelenskyy on Wednesday, Merz stopped short of committing to the transfer of the Taurus system. Instead, he pledged German support to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile capabilities domestically, an offer viewed in Kyiv as a long-term investment rather than an immediate battlefield solution.
Germany remains Ukraine’s second-largest military backer after the United States. Yet, the Taurus missile issue continues to be politically sensitive in Berlin. Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz had previously resisted calls to supply the weapon system, citing concerns about direct German involvement in striking Russian territory. Scholz had only agreed to send Leopard 2 battle tanks after prolonged pressure from NATO allies in early 2023.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that Western-supplied long-range weapons used against Russian soil would be viewed as an act of war by NATO, raising the stakes for Berlin’s decision.
Since assuming office on May 6, Merz has signaled a firmer stance in support of Ukraine, even as U.S. President Donald Trump, pushes to curtail Washington’s involvement in the war. Nonetheless, a recent wave of devastating Russian missile strikes has reportedly angered Trump, who labeled Putin “crazy” in a rare rebuke.
For Ukraine, however, the Taurus missile remains a potential game-changer capable of striking high-value, fortified Russian targets at standoff range. Whether Berlin will eventually authorize its transfer remains a pivotal question in Europe’s evolving security calculus.
What is the Taurus Missile System?
The Taurus KEPD 350 is a precision-guided, long-range cruise missile jointly developed by Germany’s MBDA Deutschland and Sweden’s Saab Bofors Dynamics in the late 1990s. With a striking range of approximately 500 km (over 300 miles), it is engineered to penetrate and destroy heavily fortified and deeply buried targets making it a formidable asset in modern warfare.
Armed with a powerful dual-stage warhead, the Taurus is designed to neutralize high-value infrastructure such as hardened command centers, deep bunkers, air defense sites, and naval vessels. One of its key tactical advantages is its ability to navigate long distances using terrain contour mapping and inertial navigation systems, allowing it to operate effectively even in GPS-denied environments.
For Kyiv, the Taurus represents a quantum leap in stand-off strike capability. While Ukraine currently deploys long-range systems like the U.S.-made ATACMS and the UK-supplied Storm Shadow, these munitions have shorter ranges – roughly half that of the Taurus – and carry lighter payloads. Military analysts and Ukrainian officials alike view the Taurus as potentially the most impactful Western missile to date, should Berlin authorize its transfer.
Why Has Germany Not Delivered the Taurus to Ukraine?
Despite mounting pressure from NATO allies and repeated Ukrainian appeals, Berlin has thus far refrained from greenlighting Taurus missile deliveries. The hesitation traces back to the previous government under former Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his Social Democratic Party (SPD)-led coalition, which maintained a policy of strategic restraint to avoid direct entanglement in the conflict.
As mentioned before, Moscow has consistently warned that Western long-range systems used against targets inside Russia would constitute a red line – viewed as direct participation by NATO in the war. This threat calculus has kept Berlin cautious, despite providing a wide array of other military aid, including MARS II and HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, and significant air defense capabilities.
Another key factor is Germany’s post-WWII defense doctrine, rooted in pacifism and parliamentary oversight of military engagements, a tradition that the SPD has been reluctant to abandon even amid rising European security threats.
The Espionage Scandal That Intensified the Debate
In March 2024, German intelligence confirmed that Russia had intercepted a top-secret internal conversation among Bundeswehr officers discussing potential Taurus deployment scenarios, including a hypothetical strike on the strategically critical Kerch Bridge, which links mainland Russia to occupied Crimea. The leak embarrassed Berlin and intensified domestic scrutiny over Scholz’s refusal to authorize the missiles.
Shifting Western Postures
Meanwhile, the United States has moved ahead. In November 2023, President Joe Biden lifted restrictions on the use of U.S. weapons against Russian military targets inside the Kursk region, a tactical shift that allowed Ukraine to briefly seize and partially hold Russian territory across the border. This marked a significant escalation and signaled evolving Western rules of engagement.
With Friedrich Merz now at the helm in Berlin and renewed pressure on European capitals to strengthen Ukraine’s long-range strike capacity, the Taurus debate remains a litmus test for Germany’s evolving defense posture and a pivotal decision that could reshape the battlefield dynamics of the war.
Whether Germany will shed its caution and finally deliver the missile Ukraine sees as a game-changer remains to be seen. But with Russian aerial assaults intensifying and NATO unity under strain, the clock is ticking.
Is Germany Finally Shifting Its Stance on the Taurus Missiles, And Will It Matter?
Yet, Germany may be inching closer to a more assertive posture on long-range strike capabilities for Ukraine, but questions remain over the depth, timing, and coherence of Berlin’s new position under Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
As head of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Merz was a vocal critic of former Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s reluctance to authorize Taurus missile deliveries to Ukraine. During his campaign, Merz pledged firmer support for Kyiv, including the possibility of providing long-range precision munitions. Now in office, Merz appears to be signaling a recalibration but not without political friction from within his own governing coalition, which includes the historically cautious Social Democratic Party (SPD).
During a joint appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week, Merz announced that Germany would assist Ukraine in developing and producing long-range missile systems domestically, a move interpreted by analysts as a strategic compromise. He further stated that funding mechanisms for such cooperation would be discussed at the upcoming G7 summit in Canada.
Though Merz stopped short of committing to the transfer of Taurus missiles, his remarks reignited speculation among security experts. In comments to German public broadcaster WDR, Merz noted that NATO range restrictions on Western-supplied weapons were “no longer applicable” asserting that the United Kingdom, France, the United States, and Germany had all relaxed limitations on how their munitions could be used.
However, he later clarified that he was merely acknowledging a shift that had occurred “months ago,” particularly regarding Ukraine’s right to conduct strikes within Russian territory. His ambiguity drew criticism from both SPD leaders and members of his own CDU, who argued that the government was sending mixed signals on one of the most strategically consequential issues of the war.
CDU lawmaker Roderich Kiesewetter posted on X that Germany remained “irrelevant” to the long-range missile equation due to its ongoing refusal to release Taurus systems. He added that the lack of unity within the coalition undermined Berlin’s credibility and projected weakness to Moscow.
“Such statements are therefore overall unhelpful because they highlight Europe’s weakness to Russia,” Kiesewetter said bluntly.
SPD Chairman and Vice Chancellor Lars Klingbeil also pushed back, insisting there had been no official policy change regarding Taurus or the use of German weapons to strike targets inside Russia. The SPD’s longstanding wariness, rooted in both domestic political culture and concerns about escalating the conflict, continues to temper Berlin’s military calculus.
Defense analysts remain divided on the operational impact of any potential Taurus transfer. John Foreman, a senior fellow at Chatham House, cautioned that a late-stage delivery might serve more as a symbolic gesture than a battlefield game-changer.
“A Taurus delivery now is unlikely to shift the overall trajectory of the war,” Foreman stated noting that Russia has adapted significantly, improving dispersal tactics, enhancing air defense coverage, and employing camouflage to frustrate Western targeting.
In essence, even as Berlin flirts with a more proactive role, the Taurus debate encapsulates broader tensions within Germany’s strategic identity: a nation grappling with its historical aversion to war, its responsibilities as a leading NATO member, and the hard realities of a protracted conflict on Europe’s eastern flank.
The critical question now is not only whether Germany will act, but whether it will act in time to matter.
What Long-Range Missiles Does Ukraine Already Possess—and How Might Russia Respond to Germany’s Shift?
Ukraine’s current long-range strike capability is largely dependent on a limited arsenal of Western-supplied systems, with the most prominent being the U.S.-made ATACMS and the Anglo-French Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missiles.
To date, the United States has supplied approximately 40 MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), ballistic missiles capable of delivering cluster munitions to targets as far as 300 km (190 miles) away.
These have been deployed against high-value Russian targets such as military airfields, logistical hubs, and energy infrastructure. Notably, following the Biden administration’s decision to lift range restrictions earlier this year, Ukraine used a salvo of six ATACMS missiles to strike a weapons depot in Russia’s Bryansk region.
However, by January 2024, Ukraine had reportedly depleted its stockpile, according to an Associated Press report. It remains unclear whether Washington has replenished the inventory since.
The United Kingdom, for its part, was the first nation to provide Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles in May 2023, supplying the Storm Shadow – an air-launched missile valued at approximately $1 million per unit with a range of up to 250 km (155 miles). These precision munitions, capable of penetrating hardened targets, have been used extensively against Russian positions in Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and occupied Crimea. In a notable escalation in November, Ukraine reportedly employed the Storm Shadow to strike inside Russian territory, including a high-profile attack in Kursk that killed a Russian general and several North Korean operatives believed to be assisting Moscow. Between 100 to 200 units have reportedly been delivered.
France’s Scalp cruise missile, essentially a twin of the Storm Shadow, is also in Ukraine’s arsenal. Both systems are products of the European defense consortium MBDA, with components sourced from the UK, France, and Italy and assembled at a UK production facility.
While these systems have provided Ukraine with a formidable albeit limited strike capability, defense analysts warn that their impact may diminish over time unless resupply is sustained and integrated into a broader strategy.
Russia’s Anticipated Response: A Familiar Playbook of Threats and Denunciations
As of now, Moscow has not issued a formal response to Chancellor Merz’s latest announcement on collaborating with Ukraine in domestic missile development. However, Russia’s prior statements and early reactions suggest a predictable return to escalatory rhetoric.
Historically, the Kremlin has treated any Western-supplied weaponry used within Russian territory as a red line. President Vladimir Putin reiterated in September that such strikes could prompt nuclear retaliation. While Merz’s approach supporting co-production within Ukraine may be designed to sidestep that threshold, it is unlikely to allay Moscow’s concerns.
In April, following Merz’s electoral victory and his open advocacy for transferring the Taurus missile, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned that any deployment of such systems would constitute direct German involvement in the conflict.
Responding to this week’s developments, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov accused Merz of contradicting his own vice chancellor, stating that the chancellor “has confused everyone, if not himself.” He warned that moving forward with missile support would be “an extremely dangerous decision” and “several steps toward additional confrontation,” undermining any prospects for diplomatic resolution.
Zakharova added that Berlin is aligning itself ever more closely with Kyiv’s wartime strategy and, in doing so, is “digging itself deeper into the hole in which the Kyiv regime has long been trapped.” She also questioned Merz’s authority to make such sweeping declarations on behalf of the broader Western alliance.
The Last Bit,
Germany’s cautious recalibration on long-range strike systems may still fall short of a definitive policy shift. But for Moscow, any movement in that direction, symbolic or operational, is likely to provoke familiar threats and a continuation of its geopolitical narrative: that Western nations are edging toward direct confrontation.
Whether Merz’s nuanced stance holds or evolves into something more assertive remains to be seen, still Berlin’s voice in the missile debate is no longer a footnote, it is becoming a headline.
