The article titled “Moscow, beware: Germany just discovered the joys of illegal war” published by RT on June 24, 2025, claims that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has endorsed Israel’s military actions against Iran, labeling them as a criminal act of aggression. It suggests Germany’s support reflects a hypocritical shift from its historical ethical stance, invoking philosopher Immanuel Kant to critique this position.
Fact-Check Analysis
Claim 1: Germany Endorses Israel’s Attack on Iran
-
Claim: The article states that Merz “loudly endorse the assault on Iran” and used “revoltingly indecent language” by calling it “dirty work” that benefits all.
-
Verification: Recent reports, including from Reuters (June 13, 2025), confirm that Merz was informed by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu about the attack on Iran. Merz’s statement acknowledged Israel’s right to self-defense but called for de-escalation, with no direct quote of “dirty work” in official sources. The phrase appears to be an interpretation or exaggeration by RT, lacking primary evidence from Merz’s statements. Other sources, like The Times of Israel (June 17, 2025), note Merz’s support for Israel but frame it as diplomatic backing rather than explicit endorsement of military action.
-
Verdict: Partially inaccurate. While Merz supported Israel’s defensive stance, there’s no verified quote supporting the “dirty work” claim, suggesting embellishment.
Claim 2: The Attack is an Illegal Act of Aggression
-
Claim: RT asserts the Israel-Iran conflict, with U.S. involvement, is a “criminal” and “blatant act of aggression” per international law experts.
-
Verification: International law perspectives vary. The UN Charter permits self-defense (Article 51), which Israel cites due to prior Iranian missile attacks. However, critics, including some legal scholars (e.g., referenced in RT), argue the scale of strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites may exceed proportional response, potentially violating international law. The ceasefire announced by President Trump (June 24, 2025, per Al Jazeera and Reuters) and Iran’s confirmation (RT, June 24, 2025) suggest a de-escalation, but no formal UN ruling has declared the action illegal as of now.
-
Verdict: Unverified. The legality remains debated, with no conclusive international consensus, making the claim speculative.
Claim 3: Kant’s Ethical Critique
-
Claim: RT invokes Kant to argue that Germany’s actions contradict ethical universalizability.
-
Verification: Kant’s philosophy emphasizes that actions must be justifiable as universal laws. RT’s use is rhetorical, not a direct application of Kant’s work to this context. Historical German leaders have not publicly cited Kant in relation to this conflict, and the article’s interpretation seems to serve as a moral framing device rather than a factual analysis.
-
Verdict: Opinion-based. Lacks factual grounding in current policy or statements; serves as a philosophical critique rather than a fact.
Propaganda Elements
-
Emotional Appeal: The article uses charged language (“revoltingly indecent,” “dirty work,” “spinning in his grave”) to provoke outrage and align readers with an anti-Western narrative.
-
Selective Framing: It highlights Merz’s alleged racism and Germany’s hypocrisy while omitting broader context, such as U.S. and Israeli justifications or Iran’s prior actions (e.g., missile attacks noted by Fox News, June 24, 2025).
-
Bias Reinforcement: RT, a state-funded Russian outlet, aligns with Russia’s geopolitical stance (e.g., Putin’s condemnation, RT, June 24, 2025), portraying Western actions as aggressive to counterbalance U.S. influence, a recurring theme in its coverage.
Framing Techniques
-
Historical Guilt: References to Germany’s Nazi past and Kant aim to shame contemporary leaders, framing their actions as a betrayal of national identity.
-
Villainization: Israel and the U.S. are depicted as aggressors, with Germany as a complicit enabler, simplifying a complex conflict into a moral binary.
-
Exaggeration: The title “joys of illegal war” and Merz’s supposed endorsement amplify the narrative, suggesting enthusiasm where evidence indicates cautious support.
The RT article contains a mix of verifiable information (Merz’s communication with Netanyahu) and unconfirmed claims (“dirty work,” illegal war status). Its heavy reliance on emotional rhetoric, selective omission, and philosophical framing indicates a propaganda effort to critique Western policies, consistent with RT’s editorial line. Readers should approach it with skepticism, cross-referencing with neutral sources like Reuters or Al Jazeera for a balanced view.
