For the first time this year, Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) is answering questions from MPs in the Bundestag today. And it is already clear in advance what will be the focus of the 70 minutes allotted for this: Why, despite urgent requests from Ukraine, despite all the advice from important allies and despite the resistance of both coalition partners, Scholz remains adamant in his rejection of the delivery of the Taurus missiles to the war zone ? The CDU/CSU faction wants to “grill” him about it, as they say in political and media jargon. Chances of success: moderate.
What the Taurus debate is about
The Taurus is a cruise missile produced in Germany and used by the Bundeswehr with a range of more than 500 kilometers and maximum accuracy. From Ukraine you can hit Moscow with five-meter-long rockets. However, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government says it has no plans to do so. She wants to use the Taurus to destroy the supply lines of the Russian armed forces far behind the front line. That’s why it submitted an application to the federal government to provide this weapon system in May last year.
In October, Scholz rejected a Taurus delivery for the first time – without providing a detailed explanation. This only followed on February 26th at the dpa editorial conference in chief in a conversation with journalists and in the days afterwards at other public events. However, Scholz has not yet commented on this in the Bundestag.
As Scholz argues
The Chancellor points to the concern that Germany could be drawn into the Ukraine war with a delivery of the Taurus. His argument is three-fold. Because the Taurus can be used to reach Russian territory as far as Moscow, Scholz does not want to hand over control of this weapon to the Ukrainians. In order to maintain control themselves, German soldiers would have to take part in targeting – from Germany or in Ukraine.
Both are out of the question for Scholz because, in his view, that could mean involvement in the war. The Bundestag would also have to agree to such a deployment of German soldiers if one wanted to be legally on the safe side. This is not the case in other countries such as Great Britain and France.
What the Union accuses Scholz of: false information
The Union accuses the Chancellor of giving the impression that the Taurus could not be used without German soldiers. However, the conversation between four Bundeswehr officers intercepted by Russia proves that this is very possible if Ukrainian soldiers are trained appropriately. The CDU foreign politician Roderich Kiesewetter says that Scholz worked “with false information”.
However, Scholz never explicitly commented on the technical feasibility of a Taurus operation without German soldiers. When asked whether it would not be possible without German soldiers, he said at the dpa editorial conference: “What other countries are doing, which have different traditions and different constitutional institutions, is something that we cannot do in the same way.”
What she also accuses him of: indiscretion
Which brings us to the Union’s second accusation. Scholz had “explained” how the British and French operate their cruise missiles. What is meant above all is this sentence: “What the British and French do in terms of target control and support for target control cannot be done in Germany.” Scholz does not speak of soldiers in this context.
However, there had already been speculation that the British and French would support the programming of their Storm Shadow and Scalp cruise missiles, which were delivered to Ukraine, with their own forces. However, this was only explicitly stated by Air Force Inspector Ingo Gerhartz in the intercepted conversation about Taurus. The British have “a few people on site” to support the Ukrainians, but the French do not.
Could Scholz change his mind again?
At first probably not. Scholz has spoken a word of power. “I am the Chancellor, and that’s why this applies.” However, he has not committed himself forever. If the situation in the war zone changes significantly, that might change his mind after all. It is also unclear what effect it would have if the Americans decided to supply longer-range cruise missiles. So far, Ukraine has only received almost two dozen of its Atacms with a limited range of 165 kilometers. But Ukraine wants Atacms with a range of 300 kilometers.
In any case, the pressure from the Bundestag is unlikely to cause the Chancellor to change course for the time being. When Parliament votes again on Thursday on the Union’s request on the delivery, there will almost certainly not be a majority in favor. As things stand, if at all, only individual coalition members are likely to vote for the motion.
