Claus Strunz, CEO and editorial director of Euronews, produced an opinion piece that, coming from such a position, is actually an editorial. While several assertions are most likely true, the entire construct is, in my opinion, misguided and potentially harmful.

Here’s the thing, published on June 4, 2026 at 14:16 GMT+2 and updated at 14:44:

Opinion: Germany in intensive care – a danger for all of Europe
After Germany’s resounding defeat in the race for a seat on the UN Security Council, one thing has become clear: the country is in intensive care. An opinion piece by Euronews’ Editorial Director, Claus Strunz. #EuropeNews

First, Germany’s failure to secure a temporary seat on the UN Security Council has nothing to do with anything else but, as Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul admitted, with Germany’s steadfast support for Israel, even in the context of Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon.

So the opinion piece starts from a wrong conjecture. Maybe Herr Strunz should have questioned the adequacy of a UNSC formed in the 1945 mindset. Why wouldn’t Germany and Japan have permanent seats? And why would Russia still have one? Or maybe Poland, Ukraine, and India should have permanent seats, too. The failure is of the entire United Nations, not of Germany!

Then, the following paragraph is a shocking one (the emphasis is mine):

Germany has evidently lost trust and squandered credibility. Politically, it is no longer taken seriously. Economically, it is increasingly seen as a declining power. Praise is now largely confined to its past achievements, as “Made in Germany” is increasingly associated with high costs and inefficiency. Germany has become an old-people’s home and a museum for a world that no longer exists. Yet it should be the engine driving Europe’s future.

To make sure the reader realized it’s a German who wrote that:

Is that fair?

As a proud German and European, I find the next sentence difficult to write: yes, it is fair. Worse, Germany has brought this upon itself.

Ah, a proud European. Remember that.

Now, in the next one, I’m not sure that paragraph splitting helps the understanding. Is he talking of the Green Deal in the first part? Because, otherwise, CDU-CSU becoming “liberal” is only a natural evolution of all species that don’t want to share the fate of dinosaurs. In Italy, even as Democrazia Cristiana was rather a catch-all party with reform-minded economic policies, it still had to dissolve in 1994, albeit because of its ties with the Mafia. Throughout Europe, the Left slid to the right, and the Center-Right slid to the left. Their being perceived as still inadequate led to the rise of the far right and, in some countries, of the far left (Mélenchon). I’d have rather insisted on how much the FDP has proven to be a disappointment!

For too long, politics has allowed itself to be driven by ideological projects that were either hostile to future prosperity or simply irrelevant. Conservatives, in many cases, transformed themselves into progressives and thereby made themselves politically redundant.

Oh, but Herr Strunz seems so conservative that maybe he should join the AfD! Oh, my, Germany is too much leaning towards the left!

Europe already has plenty of parties on the left. As a result, the vital balance between pragmatism and ambition, between preserving and reforming – qualities once found across the political spectrum – has been lost.

That balance he’s talking about might have worked in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, with all those crises. But Angela Merkel’s CDU was a dead man walking.

OK, let’s cut the crap and say it out loud (again, emphasis is mine):

Today, the stakes go far beyond the next parliamentary vote, salary increases for politicians, bans on combustion engines, or debates about gender identity. As of now, Germany’s future is inseparable from Europe’s future.

If Germany cannot get back on its feet, the European Union itself will be in danger. There is a reason why one often hears in Brussels, sometimes joking, sometimes with genuine concern: the EU exists as long as Germany pays.

It is therefore time for a decisive turnaround.

Jawohl, mein… err… I have to admit, though, that his next words seem sensible:

The fuel for this turnaround is simple: pragmatism instead of ideology.

This will not be achieved through speeches or moral appeals, one of Western Europe’s least attractive habits. Leadership emerges from economic strength, political credibility, and the ability to solve problems.

But then, he lists four areas to be covered.

I can only agree that energy is too expensive in Germany, that bureaucracy is absurd precisely because of the low Digitalisierung (and, sometimes, because a wrong understanding of the GDPR means that information that previously was in shared access among public institutions now needs to be carried between public offices by the citizen), and underinvestment is obvious not only in the industry (DB has become Europe’s laughing stock):

First, Germany must regain its economic competitiveness. High energy costs, excessive bureaucracy, slow digitalisation, and insufficient investment have weakened Europe’s largest economy.

A strong Europe requires a strong Germany.

But a strong Europe requires many strong countries, not only a strong Germany! Germany might be one of the few net contributors to the EU’s budget, but if the net beneficiaries of EU funds become stronger, they might stop “sucking” EU’s funds!

Here comes the blunder:

Second, Germany must rebuild its defence capabilities and assume greater responsibility for Europe’s security. Geopolitical realities have changed. Peace and stability can no longer be taken for granted. Europe needs credible deterrence and strategic capability.

Whether it’s wise to aim for the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, to become “the strongest conventional army in Europe” by 2039 – exactly one hundred years after Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland – is open to debate. Yet, it at least resembles a plan.

Yes, he acknowledges the poorly chosen deadline, but the plan (or what resembles one) is, in my opinion, wrong. Whether it is realistic to believe that the Bundeswehr might become “the strongest conventional army in Europe” by 2039 is indeed questionable.

But even thinking of a single “strongest conventional army in Europe” is not in the spirit of a “proud European.” I might not buy the mantra that what preserved the peace in Europe for so many decades was the European Coal and Steel Community, which became the European Economic Community, and later the European Union, but there’s still some truth in it. We need cooperation, not the lead of a single country, be it economically or militarily.

If I were to suggest a plan, I’d rather insist on a joint European coordinated military force independent from NATO, as many French presidents and a few German chancellors contemplated. A truly European spirit would require the France-Germany couple to be extended to at least four countries, including Italy and Poland. Two former “bad guys” and two former victims.

But we know that Chancellor Merz wouldn’t want that, right? We know it, but we don’t say it. Merz literally despises Macron and France. I wasn’t born yesterday, and I can see things the way they are.

On migration, Angela Merkel’s failures are obvious. Merkeln is suicidal. No objections, Your Honor! Public order must be preserved!

Third, Germany must manage migration more effectively. Humanity and order are not contradictions. A country that fails to secure its borders, rarely deports illegal migrants, and loses control over irregular immigration will not be taken seriously. Secure borders, functioning asylum systems, and successful integration are prerequisites for social cohesion and trust in the democratic rule of law.

The only problem is that “secure borders” cannot be obtained within the Schengen framework unless extensions of border controls are to be granted. Is then the entire Schengen concept flawed? (Let’s note that extradition is not automatic, and it’s very common for someone to pass several borders without being checked and thus potentially become immune to the justice of their own country. Ask Romania about such cases, with Italy, Greece, and Cyprus refusing to extradite convicted criminals.) After all, being able to present a passport is not the end of the world, and this is how the defunct European Economic Community used to function. There wasn’t even a single currency, and yet, Europe was stronger than today!

But such an empty editorial cannot address such “details,” eh?

Finally, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Fourth, Germany must once again become a center of innovation. Artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, scientific research, and new energy technologies will determine the prosperity of future generations.

Europe cannot continue falling behind the United States and China. A nation that once excelled in education and invention but no longer hosts a world-class university, has slipped in international education rankings, wins few major scientific prizes, no longer sets global standards, burdens research with regulation, overregulates AI, abandons nuclear research, turns away from combustion-engine innovation, and rejects advances in genetics will struggle to compete with the world’s most innovative countries.

Very nice, but how exactly to achieve that? Complaining about the “overregulation of AI” sounds like JD Vance, Mark Zuckerberg, and techno-fascists such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Marc Andreessen. And, obviously, Roland Busch, who failed to notice that even the People’s Republic of China regulates its AI!

In this context, I see the “opinion” of Herrn Strunz as a mouthpiece for the complaints of Herrn Busch.

Actually, this makes everything clear. Complaining that “conservatives became too liberal” obviously targeted the “woke” decisions of regulating the AI. Cooperation with France is out of the question, no matter how mediocre Mistral is. Germany wasn’t ruled by a single industrial conglomerate, not even during the Third Reich. But Roland Busch dreams of Siemens ruling over Germany and Europe.

A last attempt at deceiving the audience:

To be clear: this is not an argument for German dominance.

What Europe needs is a Germany that is reliable, strong, and capable of acting. A partner for peace and prosperity. If Germany renews itself, it can once again provide momentum for Europe. If it fails, it will become far more difficult for the entire continent to preserve prosperity, security, and influence.

What Europe needs is more honesty, more transparency, and less bureaucracy, not such a langue de bois that pretends to convey the opposite of what it does convey.

This article published by Euronews is the manifesto of a new European fascism, a techno-fascism powered by AI, disguised as a pro-development, pro-cooperation, and pro-European document.

I wonder how many people will realize that.

Oh, there is also an ultimatum:

Chancellor Merz will have a decisive influence on which direction Germany – and Europe – goes. He can enter be remembered in history books as the doctor who saved the patient, or as the gravedigger.

Or else what? Should the doctor be replaced before the patient dies? And from whom should we ask for a second opinion?

More importantly, will Euronews become the KI Beobachter? Will we still enjoy freedom and democracy in Germany? Is the BfV happy with the way things seem to be evolving? Unless, of course, it’s been infiltrated by the techno-mafia.

Who’s going to save democracy in Germany? The FDP never got any real traction, and the left is devoid of any constructive ideas. Therefore, either the CDU-CSU obeys these very strong suggestions, or else (cough) the AfD will happily oblige. Then we’ll see if there’s anyone left to defend the Constitution.