Exclusive: German MP Max Krah Says Europe Is Destroying Itself

German AfD MP Maximilian Krah argues that Europe is undermining its own future through economic mismanagement and confrontation with Russia.

His proposed alternative centers on a stronger Germany, an end to aid for Ukraine, and a strategic partnership with Türkiye.

In an exclusive interview with Clash Report, Krah outlined a sweeping challenge to Europe’s political and economic direction.

He warned that France’s financing needs could fracture the EU, questioned the survival prospects of Germany’s leading carmakers and accused Chancellor Friedrich Merz of risking war with Moscow.

France As Europe’s Breaking Point

Krah identified a potential French financial crisis as a decisive test for the European system.

In his assessment, Germany would face two damaging choices if Paris sought common European borrowing or German financial guarantees.

Supporting France would postpone the reckoning while exposing Germany to the same financial pressures; refusing would threaten the EU and its currency arrangements.

“You can make both countries bankrupt, or you can contain it within France, but then the European currency system is done.”

He predicted that German backing could sustain the existing arrangements for another three to five years before both countries faced bankruptcy.

That timeline was his forecast, part of a broader argument that financial support would spread the problem rather than resolve it.

Krah traced the EU’s troubles back to the Greek bailout. His criticism extended beyond individual rescue packages to a system in which Germany, in his telling, repeatedly accepts obligations that weaken its own position.

Ukraine and the Risk of Escalation

On Ukraine, Krah called for Germany to end its financial support and seek compensation from Kyiv.

His sharpest accusation concerned Merz. Krah outlined what he called a worst-case scenario in which the chancellor escalates confrontation with Russia, triggers a Russian response and then invokes wartime conditions to move against the AfD.

“Merz is now a dangerous man because he has no hesitation about bringing all of Europe into war with Russia.”

Krah also used the war to reject comparisons between the AfD and Nazism.

He contrasted Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 with his party’s stated desire to end the fighting in Ukraine, arguing that accusations of militarism contradicted criticism of its position on negotiations.

His assessment of Washington was equally pointed.

Referring to Trump’s announcement of substantial purchases of Russian diesel, Krah argued that the U.S. had shifted toward Moscow by providing revenue while constraining Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil facilities.

He interpreted that development as a sign that the war was approaching its end.

On Vladimir Putin, Krah distinguished between approving Russia’s recovery and wanting to emulate its political system.

He credited Putin with restoring a state weakened under Boris Yeltsin, while saying he neither admired the Russian president nor wanted to live in Russia.

A Bleak Outlook for German Industry

Krah’s economic diagnosis was severe. He described Germany as stagnant, lacking a credible vision for growth and operating at roughly its 2019 economic level.

Asked whether Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes could be saved, he said no.

He nevertheless argued that Germany could recover some competitiveness through changes to labor laws, reduced union rights and greater flexibility.

Under existing rules, he said, German manufacturers could not compete with China in electric vehicles.

Energy policy formed the other central part of his argument. Krah portrayed the closure of nuclear power plants as a decision that had restricted Germany’s capacity to support future industries.

He linked rising prosperity to greater energy production and argued that AI and more advanced computing would increase electricity demand.

He said Germany had adopted the opposite assumption: that future wealth could be sustained with less energy.

His criticism also encompassed attitudes toward technology. He portrayed German resistance to nuclear power, digital communications and AI as evidence of a broader reluctance to embrace change.

Türkiye served as his counterpoint. Comparing repeated visits to Istanbul with conditions in Germany, he highlighted the city’s pace of development and judged its airport superior to Berlin’s.

Türkiye at the Center of Strategy

Krah presented closer relations with Ankara as a practical response to Germany’s economic and geopolitical problems.

“Türkiye is the key strategic partner of the 21st century.”

He grounded that assessment in geography, the history of German-Turkish relations and the roughly three million people of Turkish background living in Germany.

In his account, a deeper partnership would give that community a more prominent role in relations between the countries and strengthen its identification with Germany.

Energy was the clearest example. Krah advocated continued access to Russian gas while rejecting complete dependence on Moscow.

He proposed Türkiye as a hub through which Europe could connect to supplies from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and elsewhere.

That position combined his defense of past Russian energy ties with a call for more supply options. He argued that Soviet and Russian gas deliveries had proved dependable even during the Cold War, while identifying Türkiye as essential to a broader future network.

Defense Cooperation Beyond France

Krah also called for closer military and defense industrial cooperation with Ankara.

He contrasted Türkiye’s early development of drones with Germany’s continued emphasis on tanks.

The comparison supported his argument that the two countries had complementary capabilities.

Describing Germany’s cooperation with France on a sixth-generation fighter as having failed, he identified Türkiye as a potential partner for deeper defense technology ties.

His proposed agenda extended to foreign policy, customs arrangements and access to Central Asian markets.

Rather than treating energy and defense as separate transactions, he presented them as elements of a wider German-Turkish alignment.

His criticism of the EU’s handling of Cyprus followed the same logic. Krah accused Greece of using its leverage over the 2004 enlargement to secure Cyprus’s accession despite the unresolved dispute on the island.

He portrayed Germany’s acceptance of that outcome as a diplomatic failure.

A Different European Order

Krah’s objections to the EU did not amount to a rejection of cooperation across Europe.

He instead proposed studying the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a model for organizing different peoples within a larger political structure.

He depicted it as a German-dominated system that allowed minority cultures to flourish.

That emphasis on German strength also shaped his view of the U.S. alliance.

Krah said American troops would become unnecessary if Germany could defend itself and sustain a trusted partnership with Washington.

He also claimed that the Trump administration was protecting the AfD and that American officials regarded it as Germany’s most reasonable political force.

Asked about a possible ban on his party, Krah argued that its electorate would organize through another vehicle.

He treated the party’s continued legal existence as separate from the survival of its political objectives.