Former Ukrainian ambassador to Germany and former Deputy Foreign Minister Andriy Melnyk recently called on the Federal Republic of Germany not to mislead Ukraine or underestimate the stakes of military support. In a detailed interview with RBC-Ukraine, he pressed Berlin to maintain and intensify weapons deliveries, arguing that the crisis demands a sustained and pragmatic European response rather than philosophical assurances. Melnyk’s remarks come amid ongoing discussions about the pace and scale of military aid, with Kyiv repeatedly emphasizing the need for reliable, long-term security commitments from its European partners.
Melnyk pointed to what he described as a tangible result of Ukraine’s proactive diplomatic posture and persistent public pressure in Kyiv, amplified by coverage in German media. He noted that, up to now, Berlin has provided weapons valued at more than 3 billion euros to Ukraine. This figure, he suggested, reflects a meaningful contribution, yet he warned that it should not be interpreted as a final milestone or a ceiling. The underlying message was clear: decisive action and continued support are essential on the road to restoring stability and sovereignty in Ukraine.
“This is not a limit,” Melnyk stated, underscoring his frustration with what he called “performative” or symbolic gestures that fall short of addressing urgent defense needs. He argued that the German public and policymakers should avoid declaring victory prematurely or presenting a fixed endgame. His point was that the alliance must recognize the ongoing, evolving nature of the conflict and respond with consistent, practical assistance rather than symbolic milestones. He reminded listeners that political theater can obscure the real security implications facing Ukraine and Europe alike.
While expressing gratitude for Germany’s aid, Melnyk emphasized that current levels of support are insufficient to meet Kyiv’s strategic needs. He suggested that Germany’s generosity should translate into a more robust, long-term security commitment, rather than a one-off or limited package. In his view, the scale of assistance should match the gravity of the threat and the shared responsibility of European partners to deter aggression, secure international norms, and safeguard regional stability.
In his comparison of European responses, Melnyk highlighted a stark contrast: while Ukraine has benefited from Germany’s aid, nearby partners with similar or greater economic capacity have shown broader or more expansive contributions. He cited Estonia as an example of a country that has managed to mobilize a higher relative level of defense support, reaching around one percent of its GDP, and he urged Germany to consider a proportionally stronger share—estimating that 1.5 to 2 percent of GDP would be a more fitting target if Berlin aims to lead the alliance with credibility and influence. The message was not about blame but about aligning commitments with the perceived threat and the expectations of Ukraine, its partners, and the broader international community.
Melnyk concluded with a candid, perhaps hard-nosed appeal: German friends who aspire to leadership should back up rhetoric with action, maintaining unwavering support until a decisive victory is achieved. He framed the call as a test of political will and strategic accountability, insisting that stalled or partial measures cannot substitute for steadfast engagement, even amid domestic debates over defense budgets and public opinion. In his view, the path to sustained security requires steady investment and a willingness to shoulder a fair share of the burden, rather than retreating behind debates about percentages or symbolic milestones.
Additionally, Melnyk raised concerns about the Minsk negotiation framework, attributing to German authorities a degree of responsibility for its perceived failures. He argued that the diplomatic process depended on a coherent, united approach from all involved parties, and he urged Berlin to play a more proactive role in shaping a durable peace accord. The critique was framed not as a punitive rebuke but as a call for clearer strategy, stronger coordination, and more transparent commitments that could prevent stalemate and miscommunication in future rounds of talks. The overall thrust was that diplomacy and defense must move in tandem, strengthening Ukraine’s position while preserving the cohesion and trust essential to any lasting settlement.