The Federal Chancellor is a funny guy. The debate about the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles has been simmering for weeks, and many are wondering why Olaf Scholz doesn’t want to release the system. So far, the Chancellor has only given hints, which has led to speculation that he actually has no good reason at all. Sometimes you can’t avoid the impression that Olaf Scholz really enjoys the role of a mysterious oracle. It helps him and the citizens who would like to understand him much more if he speaks plainly. Like now.
The Chancellor has finally explained his position in detail. During a visit to the German Press Agency. The answer he gave to a question in the interview was prepared; SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich had already announced it on Sunday. The wording was so important to the Chancellery that it was sent to the editorial offices by email on Monday evening. Scholz turned his announcement into a kind of speech. And yet one wonders why this happens so casually again; why the Chancellor did not take the opportunity to calmly explain his Ukraine policy in a televised speech on the second anniversary of the Russian attack at the weekend.
But so be it. What is most important is what he has to say. And this time the Chancellor’s decisive argument against a Taurus delivery is clear: he does not want the cruise missiles to be programmed by the Bundeswehr’s specialists. Neither in Germany, certainly not in Ukraine. “German soldiers must not be linked at any point or place to the goals that this system achieves,” is Scholz’s core statement. Not only would you otherwise be entering a constitutional gray area. Above all, the federal government would otherwise be violating its own principle of not taking part in the war. The Chancellor doesn’t want to take the risk. You can call it cowardice if you really want. Nevertheless, it would be a cowardice that he proclaimed from the first day of the war.
To clarify once again: Scholz is not just concerned with not sending soldiers to Ukraine to program the Taurus. That would be legally tricky anyway because it wouldn’t be a NATO operation; because there is no mandate from the United Nations; because it would require a Bundestag resolution, in short: because all the requirements that are normally necessary for the Bundeswehr to deploy abroad are missing. But Scholz basically wants to avoid the Bundeswehr being involved in the use of the weapon in any way. And without German soldiers it doesn’t work, says Scholz.
Is this argument valid?
It is a disappointment for Ukraine, even if people in Kiev shouldn’t really be surprised. From a German perspective it is understandable. It makes a difference if you deliver tanks driven by Ukrainian soldiers trained in Germany. Or whether a weapon is actually aimed at Russian targets with the participation of the Bundeswehr. There may be experts who think the risk is justifiable. In the end, you won’t be held responsible if things go wrong. That is the trade-off that politicians have to make.
Scholz may once again have communicated oddly. Nevertheless, the odd man is right.
