Germany has been arguing for months about a possible delivery of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. Critics fear that this could lead to war. Supporters, however, see this as crucial support for Kiev.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) remains true to his line: he hesitates and weighs things up. Is he right about that? The editors of the Tagesspiegel are of divided opinion.
PRO by Malte Lehming
Debates about arms deliveries to Ukraine are mired in a dilemma. Russia is the aggressor and a nuclear superpower. The duty to help the victim is offset by the fear of an escalation that would result in the use of nuclear weapons.
Recommended editorial content
Here you will find external content selected by our editors, which enriches the article for you with additional information. Here you can display or hide the external content with one click.
I agree that the external content can be displayed to me. This means that personal data can be transmitted to third-party platforms. You can find more information about this in the data protection settings. You can find these at the bottom of our page in the footer, so you can manage or revoke your settings at any time.
Fixating on this possibility paralyzes allies, weakens Ukraine and benefits Vladimir Putin. Ignoring this possibility, however, can set a disastrous dynamic in motion.
Which fear is more serious – that of Russian neo-imperialism or that of Russian unscrupulousness regarding weapons of mass destruction? There are no objective standards for answering this question.
Olaf Scholz does not want to deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. Anyone who does not argue purely tactically should assume that this decision is not based on ignorance, is neither mood-driven nor electorally motivated.
During his chancellorship, Germany has become by far the leading support country for Ukraine in Europe. Refugees were taken in and weapons were delivered. This should be appreciated and not trivialized.
Scholz knows more than he can say publicly
What does Scholz fear about a Taurus delivery? There are terms like “loss of control” or “escalation” and the warning that Germany should not become a party to the war. There is also the assumption that Scholz knows more than he is allowed to say. He hinted at that himself – and it wouldn’t be the first time.
When it comes to war and peace, the demand for comprehensive transparency is sometimes unrealistic.
Malte Lehming
A week ago, the New York Times reported that the US government expected Russia to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine in the fall of 2022. Such an operation was seriously considered by Russia. The information comes from intercepted and strictly confidential communications.
In the event of a Ukrainian victory or the recapture of Crimea, the CIA estimated the probability of such an operation at 50 percent or higher. Scholz was informed at the time, the newspaper writes, and had diplomatic talks at the highest level, including with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Can it be assumed that this time too, the Federal Chancellor has information available regarding the Taurus delivery that is not fully conducive to public discussion?
This trust should be placed in him until proven otherwise. When it comes to war and peace, the demand for comprehensive transparency is sometimes unrealistic.
CONTRA from Christoph von Marschall
Why does the Chancellor deny Ukraine Taurus cruise missiles? He says he wants to prevent Germany from being drawn into a war with Russia.
But firstly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes. Secondly, he fuels mistrust because he bases his stance on fraud.
Third, there are good arguments that Scholz is wrong and ends up achieving the opposite: he makes a war in which Germans have to fight against Russians more likely.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a Social Democrat, warns against this. And French President Emmanuel Macron. And Poland’s government. Europe must stop Putin now and give Kiev all available weapons. If he wins in Ukraine, he will soon attack countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Empire and are now part of NATO.
The fear is plausible. If the Ukraine war ends on Putin’s terms in 2025 or 2026 because US aid to Kiev ends under a President Trump but Europe cannot or does not want to supply the necessary weapons and ammunition on its own, Putin will continue.
He probably needs a year or two to build up his army and, for example, attack Lithuania. There the Bundeswehr is in charge of defending NATO’s eastern flank. Germany would be at war with Russia.
Putin has no respect for NATO
NATO’s military power is actually intended to deter Putin. But that is based on the power of the USA. Putin has little respect for the European part of the alliance. And Trump is questioning US support.
It doesn’t have to happen like this. But the risk of this happening is real. Doesn’t Scholz want to see that? He acts as if the warnings didn’t exist.
One would like to believe that the Chancellor takes the counterarguments seriously and decides differently out of ‘prudence’. Unfortunately, he still lacks a conclusive justification.
Christopher von Marshal
The Taurus is not a miracle weapon that alone decides the war. But if Ukraine could use the Taurus to destroy the Kerch Bridge and other supply routes, Putin’s advance could at least be stopped.
And: Why does Scholz keep resorting to new frauds? The delivery of Taurus turns Germany into a warring party? Not true. International law allows arms aid to the invaded Ukraine.
German soldiers have to go to Ukraine to operate the Taurus? Not true. Ukrainians can learn this too. The training of Ukrainians in Germany is already turning Germany into a warring party? Not true. The Bundeswehr is already training Ukrainians on weapons systems.
One would like to believe that the Chancellor takes the counterarguments seriously and decides differently out of “prudence”. Unfortunately, he still lacks a conclusive justification.
Source: Tagesspiegel
I work as a news website author and mostly cover the opinion section. I have been writing since I was a teenager, and have always enjoyed telling stories. I studied journalism at university and loved every minute of it. After graduating, I decided to move to London and take up a position with a Global Happenings. It has been an incredible experience, learning about all sorts of different cultures and meeting some amazing people. My goal is to continue learning and growing in my career so that I can provide readers with the best possible content.
