Last week, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed strong concerns over the decline of Pax Americana, stating that Germany is prepared to step up and fill the resulting void.
“The era of Pax Americana in Europe and Germany is essentially over. It no longer exists in the form we once knew. Nostalgia will not aid us, and I refuse to succumb to such sentiments. This is the reality! The Americans are now fiercely protecting their own interests; thus, we must defend ours.”
What steps has Germany taken to safeguard its interests? The country recently endorsed a substantial spending initiative amounting to nearly $60 billion—widely regarded as the largest in Germany’s post-WWII history. This financial package has boosted defense stocks, though these have slightly subsided from their peak. Furthermore, on Friday, the EU approved 90 billion euros in shared debt to keep the Ukrainian initiative afloat.
What implications does this hold? Is Germany truly gearing up for conflict with Russia, or is this merely a façade to further enrich the capital class while keeping the European project intact? Likely, it is a combination of both. The European elite seem to be exhausting their resources, ramping up rearmament, and continuing to provoke Russia in Ukraine and elsewhere. At what point will common sense prevail?
Let’s examine the facts.
The German political establishment has been discussing the end of Pax Americana and the need for rearmament for years. This discourse hints at the possibility of a Pax Germanica, in which Germany assumes a pivotal role in the European arena.
🧵 Part 1/2 – Merz stood before his CDSU party and made two assertions in the same speech that should have raised alarms across Europe.
He proclaimed the end of “Pax Americana” and drew on Europe’s darkest historical moments—Munich, Sudetenland, and Hitler—to argue that Russia “won’t…” pic.twitter.com/msPDyUSvbC
— THE ISLANDER (@IslanderWORLD) December 14, 2025
Indeed, such statements should have prompted serious reflection, yet many critical events over the past four years were similarly ignored. Whether due to intention or oversight, the narrative surrounding German efficiency now appears increasingly questionable.
Germany continues to invest heavily in rearmament while simultaneously weakening its economy and reducing social expenses. Notably, on the same day the Bundestag approved the $60 billion defense initiative, the government announced cuts to welfare programs.
Merz’s speech echoes Angela Merkel’s 2017 warning that Trump’s America was withdrawing support from Europe. Yet, Merz escalates this concern, arguing that Europe is “no longer at peace” and that only a robust Germany can usher in stability.
This view bears resemblance to the much-discussed Zeitenwende put forth by Merz’s predecessor, Olaf Scholz. While it was intended to signal the dawn of a new era in both Europe and Germany—with military reforms aimed at deterring Russia—little meaningful progress has been made. In fact, the absence of diplomatic engagement with Moscow has increased tensions, leaving the German military still ill-prepared for protracted conflict.
Recently, a report from The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) titled “Europe and the End of Pax Americana” closely mirrors Merz’s remarks. As a leading think tank in Germany advising the Bundestag, its analyses warrant attention, despite often being soft-pedaled reflections of US hubris. Here’s the crux of its assessment regarding Pax Americana:
Ultimately, the decline of Pax Americana questions the role liberal-democratic values should play in foreign policy. With America potentially stepping back as an ally, proponents of a values-based foreign policy in Europe may lose a crucial supporter. In terms of the European security order, the conflict with Russia is not just about territorial claims; its roots lie in fundamentally conflicting values concerning Europe’s internal and external organization. Thus, the security of Europe for EU and NATO states intertwines with the defense of liberal-democratic ideals.
Advocacy for these values outside Europe should stress principles and institutions that directly ensure peaceful coexistence: international laws, multilateralism, and the oft-cited “rules-based order.” Interestingly, even authoritarian states, though less influential, often back these principles for their self-interest. Yet, the sobering truth remains: without the United States, preserving the remnants of the rules-based world order will be daunting.
Ah, the elusive “rules-based order”:
Germany’s CDU leader Merz stating the unspoken truths! “The ICC is for despots, not democracy-backed governments…” https://t.co/n4BIsDCjLB
— Adam Tooze (@adam_tooze) May 23, 2024
The recent legal changes emerging from the EU regarding Article 122, the permanent freeze on sovereign reserves in violation of international law, and the selective carve-out enabled by Article 20 for EU borrowing should alarm legal experts throughout the EU and globally… https://t.co/u7p3sTQPVA
— Kathleen Tyson (@Kathleen_Tyson_) December 19, 2025
The question arises: what is the strategy here? Is Germany committed to waging war against Russia in the name of a neoliberal capitalism directed by Wall Street and European financiers?
In What Form Is This Fight?
If this indeed marks Germany’s new warfare, it began some time ago and is unlikely to benefit all Germans. The detrimental shift away from affordable and reliable Russian natural gas ultimately stifled the German economy. Amid the chaos of the Ukraine conflict, Berlin’s response has been detrimental to its working class.
As valuations of defense companies skyrocket, foreign investors are capitalizing on a beleaguered German economy. In response, the Berlin government is committing $35.2 billion in public guarantees, loans, and equity to offset risks associated with private equity investments in energy, industry, and advanced technologies.
This escalation occurs as the German economy deteriorates, dragging down the entire Eurozone. Such military Keynesianism proves an ineffective method of rejuvenating the economy, redirecting taxpayer funds away from social programs toward arms manufacturers and financial schemes under the banner of national security against purported threats from Russia and a retreating America. Notably, US troops remain stationed in Germany, and Moscow previously expressed eagerness to engage economically with Germany, advocating for deeper European integration. The notion that Russia desires war with a continent of 450 million inhabitants led by anti-Russian leaders is unfounded.
Unprepared for a Real Fight
While European leadership aims to prolong the Ukrainian initiative, they also indicate an ambition to prepare for warfare against Russia—a goal for which they are not remotely ready. A June report from the Kiel Institute and Bruegel reveals significant shortcomings in preparation:
- Inability to transform financial outlays into practical military capabilities and sustained growth in European defense production, maintenance, and modernization.
- Challenges in reducing dependency on US military systems and addressing the overstretched US defense sector.
- Cost-effectiveness remains a major hurdle.
- A significant challenge lies in decreasing reliance on US forces; raising a competent European military is hampered by a lack of public interest.
- Simultaneously, Russia has gained an advantage since 2022.
It would require immense political will, vision, and sacrifices from the populace to prepare effectively; yet, they may still lag behind Russia, potentially managing to endure more than just a few weeks.
Are the current European leaders—or any potential successors—capable of anything beyond the disintegration of their own nations?
Now, let’s consider what remains unknown.
Is It All a Ruse?
It’s conceivable. There are incentives for capital to dismantle European welfare systems while simultaneously expanding supranational EU authority, which seems increasingly reliant on fear-driven narratives surrounding Russia.
As living standards across the EU decline, prices rise, and real wages fall, the cuts to the social safety net alongside prolonged borrowing to support arms manufacturers only exacerbate these issues. A report from the Kiel Institute highlights:
Current NATO rearmament plans may lead to sustained increases in taxation for member states, as indicated by a unique data set that covers military financing over the past 150 years in 20 countries. The data demonstrates that military expenditure is initially funded through elevated public debt, but over the medium to long term, tax burdens inevitably rise.
Spook Alignment?
At present, clarity on the intentions of European governments remains elusive, as they have largely disregarded the voice of their constituents, with much of foreign and domestic policy now directed by intelligence agencies. A pertinent example lies in the UK’s open conversations about prolonging its covert war against Russia beyond Ukraine’s eventual collapse:
🇬🇧 UK Democracy In A State of Collapse
The latest report from the UK Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) reveals that MI5, MI6, and GCHQ operate with near-total autonomy, lacking public oversight… pic.twitter.com/EiDt8W9TWc
— 🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉 (@apocalypseos) December 17, 2025
We’ll continue witnessing Western governments engage in various tactics—from fake negotiations to misdirection, narrative control, and false flags. As the Washington Post recently revealed, the US pretended to engage in negotiations with Tehran to facilitate Israeli attacks on Iranian officials. The number of reports highlighting strained relations between the White House and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is staggering.
With espionage now a component of statecraft, interests of capital often overshadow national needs, and irrationality drives strategy, the idea that Europe might attempt to extend an offensive against Russia seems feasible—despite their apparent military unpreparedness.
For instance, if there is alignment among intelligence operatives across the Atlantic, some American officials envision converting the conflict against Russia into a broader EU effort, with US assistance; although this poses considerable risks. If European leaders have already shown themselves willing to jeopardize their nations economically for this endeavor, it raises the question: will they take reckless steps to further exacerbate their situation?
They might abstain from deploying troops eastward, but if they can successfully incite conflict with Moscow, it could easily serve to justify an increase in military spending, further shrink social welfare programs, and consolidate power in Brussels.
Amidst the EU’s ongoing decline, perhaps the most disconcerting notion is that the political class has entrenched themselves to such a degree that they exist in a self-created bunker.
Finland has over 50,000 air raid shelters.
Its preparations aim to bolster resilience and deter aggression.
We have much to learn from the Finnish approach.
This is the type of mindset I aim to promote during my second term.
— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen_epp) June 4, 2024
In conclusion, Germany’s recent military and economic maneuvers indicate a shift in its global stance amid the waning influence of Pax Americana. This landscape raises critical questions about the country’s preparedness for conflict, the viability of its economic decisions, and the larger implications for Europe as it navigates uncertainties in foreign policy while grappling with domestic challenges. As the political elite continue to act in ways that seem dismissive of the populace’s welfare, the future holds both precarious risks and complex consequences for the European continent.
