Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
In an interview last week, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Poland and the Baltic states share some responsibility for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. She has been under a lot of criticism over this. Her argument, however, deserves some attention.
Merkel recalled that in June 2021, amid the Minsk II accords discussions, she and French President Emmanuel Macron proposed a new EU-wide dialogue with Moscow. The aim was to engage Russia directly, thus seeking to de-escalate tensions.
However, Merkel said, that initiative was blocked at the European Council level — “mainly” by “the Baltic states”, but “Poland was also against it.” These countries feared the EU would adopt a softer stance toward the Kremlin, undermining a “common policy towards Russia.” Merkel concluded that their refusal encouraged Putin to take the path that led to the military campaign in Ukraine.
The backlash in Western media has been intense. But if one looks beyond the noise, Merkel’s point is not absurd at all. It must be understood as a part of a larger picture. The point is, as a matter of fact, consistent with a broader realist understanding of European security, and echoes the warnings of scholars such as John Mearsheimer.
The University of Chicago professor has long argued that NATO’s post-Cold War expansion eastward created a classic security dilemma, leaving Russia feeling cornered and threatened. From that viewpoint, the former German leader’s 2021 initiative — blocked by Warsaw and the Baltic capitals — could have offered one last diplomatic window before the war.
Merkel’s critics in Poland might want to recall another part of the story: the battle over Nord Stream. This pipeline, connecting Russia and Germany under the Baltic Sea, also symbolized Merkel’s policy of “Wandel durch Handel” — change through trade. It was about ensuring Europe’s energy security and lowering costs, a win-win project for both Berlin and Moscow. Yet Washington, viewing it as a threat to its influence and liquified natural gas (LNG) exports, relentlessly sabotaged it. As I wrote back in 2021, American interests were simple enough: it is about maintaining leverage over Europe and preventing Moscow from gaining more influence there.
It is all forgotten History now, but German lawmakers even called for countersanctions against the US over Washington’s interference back then. Berlin’s efforts to preserve a pragmatic energy partnership with Russia were systematically undermined — by Washington and Warsaw.
Poland has long campaigned against Nord Stream, hoping to position itself as a future gas hub through the Baltic Pipe which links Poland’s coast to Norwegian gas fields through Denmark. As I noted at the time, the Polish aspirations, with 10 bcm annual capacity, were hardly a viable alternative to the over 55 bcm capacity of Nord Stream 2 (around five times greater).
Back to 2025, the Nord Stream issue is once again in the spotlight. As I’ve discussed, Poland is now refusing to cooperate with German authorities investigating the 2022 pipeline explosions. Prime Minister Donald Tusk even declared that “the problem of Europe… and Poland is not that Nord Stream 2 was blown up, but that it was built.” No wonder Berlin is exasperated, when Warsaw’s concerns seem to be all about maintaining its political narrative against Germany and Russia.
This latest dispute reflects a deeper fault line in Europe. Merkel’s Germany had pursued energy interdependence with Russia to stabilize relations; Poland, conversely, sought to weaken that link and align fully with Washington. One may recall that when President Biden waved most sanctions on Nord Stream 2 in mid-2021, Warsaw reacted furiously, accusing Washington of betrayal and calling for a more aggressively anti-Russian approach.
The United States, for its part, has consistently shifted the burden of the “Ukrainian issue” onto Europe. As I argued elsewhere, Washington repeatedly manipulates Europe into dealing with American made crises. Thus far, the pattern is clear: Washington encourages confrontation with Russia, reaps profits through more expensive LNG exports and arms sales, and lets Europeans pay the economic and political price.
Meanwhile, Poland is emerging as a nuclear flashpoint. Warsaw has declared its ambition to host nuclear weapons, further escalating tensions. This underreported development transforms Poland into a potential frontline in any future confrontation.
Merkel’s recent comments, then, must be seen in context. Her critics in Eastern Europe accuse her of “appeasement”; her defenders see in her a pragmatic realist. When she proposed a new dialogue in 2021, she was acting on a simple insight: peace in Europe is impossible without Russia. That might sound naïve today, but it remains true. The refusal by Poland and the Baltic states to support that diplomatic effort told Moscow that Europe was incapable of speaking independently.
Understanding the complex Russo-Ukrainian conflict requires examining its multiple causes. Structural and conjunctural factors converged: NATO expansion, failed diplomacy, energy geopolitics, and domestic politics within Ukraine. As I’ve argued, Kyiv also faces ethnopolitical unresolved civil-right issues that complicate the picture — but that is a topic for another day.
Merkel’s remarks are, in essence, an appeal to remember what was lost: the possibility of a Europe capable of managing its own security dialogue with Moscow. Whether that window could have prevented the ongoing war, is open for debate. But her critics should at least admit that she is pointing to a hard truth. Europe’s tragedy has a lot to do with its subordination to American interests.
In other words, whether one “likes Putin” or not, the crisis in Ukraine did not emerge from nowhere. It was over a decade in the making, fueled by ideological blindness and a blatant refusal to confront uncomfortable realities. Merkel, for all her flaws, is one of the few European politicians still willing to say it out loud. And the point she is making is in fact just the tip of the iceberg.
