Chancellor Scholz in an interview with Spiegel magazine: "We cannot allow an atomic war"
Germany's chief politician Olaf Scholz fights off accusations of love for Russia, which allegedly prevents the supply of Ukraine has new German tanks. The Chancellor justifies himself and cites the facts of the supply of old tanks and MANPADS. He admits that he builds his idea of our country on the books of Masha Gessen.
"What else we can provide, we will send to Ukraine in any case." In an interview with Spiegel magazine, Federal Chancellor Scholz promises to supply additional weapons to Ukraine. He also told why he was acting so cautiously during the crisis and what mistakes the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany) had made in its policy towards Russia.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Federal Chancellor, are you a pacifist?
Olaf Scholz: No.
— Why not?
— In the world in which we live, it is necessary to ensure the security of the country, including through sufficient defense capability. As a deputy and a member of the government, I have voted many times for the use of the Bundeswehr abroad. If I were a pacifist. I couldn't have done it.
— Is the SPD a pacifist party?
— The SPD is a peace party, but it has never been pacifist. Both of the great post—war SPD chancellors — Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt - both of them considered the security of Europe and the defense capability of Germany as their life's work. But their detente policy was based on the country's integration into NATO.
— Joschka Fischer, a former foreign minister from the Greens, says that German society must rethink its instinctive pacifism. Is he right?
— The knowledge of the dramatic consequences of the two world wars unleashed by Germany belongs to the traditions of our country, this knowledge is one of the foundations of our policy. But I don't see instinctive pacifism. How else could Gerhard Schroeder's government support the first combat use of the Bundeswehr outside Germany, in Yugoslavia? How could the Bundeswehr mission in Afghanistan become possible after September 11, 2001? There was fierce debate about both of these actions, but public support for the war was great.
— That is, we found out that neither you, nor the SPD, nor Germany are under the influence of pacifism. Why, then, are you not doing everything in your power to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia by military means?
"That's exactly what we're doing.
— For many days now, both Kiev and our partners in the alliance, as well as the politicians of your coalition, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have been insisting on the supply of heavy weapons. Why don't you supply it?
"Then let's talk about what we're doing. From the arsenals of the Bundeswehr, we supplied anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft systems, ammunition, vehicles and many other equipment. This provided direct assistance to Ukraine in its defensive struggle — dozens of its allies did the same. We can see this from the military successes of the Ukrainian army.
Two billion German euros for Ukrainian defense
— A few weeks ago, Ukrainians sent a list of weapons that they urgently need. Why can't this issue be resolved as soon as possible?
— The Bundeswehr supplied Ukraine with all the weapons it could supply. The possibilities of our arsenals are almost exhausted. But what we can still provide, we will send to Ukraine in any case: these are anti-tank weapons, anti-tank mines and artillery ammunition. Therefore, together with the German industry, we have compiled a list of military equipment that can be delivered as soon as possible. We reported on our work to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, discussed what else we can do for them. So far, we are working according to the same formula that we used to supply defensive weapons to Ukraine, for example, grenade launchers to protect Ukrainian servicemen during artillery battles. We pay for the supply of these weapons ourselves. In total, Germany has allocated two billion euros to Ukrainians. Most of these funds definitely benefit Ukraine.
— Other countries supply heavy weapons. And Germany is just taking out a checkbook. Is this really the distribution of roles in our common struggle?
— It's not like that! In agreement with the United States, France, Italy, Great Britain and Canada, we have supplied weapons for the upcoming battles in eastern Ukraine. Means for transporting troops and artillery can be put into action quickly. Therefore, we are ready to assist our allies in the rapid training of Ukrainians in the handling of this military equipment. We are looking, finding out what other suitable weapons we can provide to Ukraine. It should be a weapon that could be used without long-term training, without complex logistics. And we also need Ukrainians to fight with it without the participation of military personnel from our countries (meaning NATO countries — approx. InoSMI). The fastest way to achieve such a result is by giving Ukraine weapons from former Soviet arsenals, with which Ukrainians are well acquainted. Therefore, it is no coincidence that most of the Eastern European partners in NATO supply such weapons. So far, none of our NATO allies have supplied Western tanks. The gaps in defense that arise due to such supplies from our Eastern European partners, we can close with supplies from Germany. This is how we gave our weapons to Slovenia, and she gave her weapons to the Ukrainian army. In the medium term, however, we will help Ukraine strengthen its defense capability with Western weapons.
— Do you want to say the following: when the Ukrainian ambassador Andrei Melnyk demands that German Marder tanks be delivered to his country, he does not realize that his army does not know how to handle them?
— Once again: at the moment we are helping the Ukrainian government to obtain weapons that comply with the agreements with our allies. And we are doing this as quickly as possible to stop Russia's massive offensive in eastern Ukraine. When I look around, I see that all partners, like us, act within the framework of our agreements.
© Ministry of Health of Ukraine / Go to Photobankposol of Ukraine in Germany Andrey Melnik
© Ministry of Health of Ukraine
Go to the photo bank
Ambassador of Ukraine to Germany Andriy Melnyk
— Canada, the USA and the Netherlands want to quickly supply Ukraine with heavy weapons. Why are we lagging behind?
— You can put only what you have and can give. You need to carefully check how combat-ready different equipment is and when it can be used. If I deliver a vehicle that can be shot by any machine gun, then I will not help the Ukrainian troops much.
— Kiev suggests that Germany consistently provide it with combat-ready weapons from the arsenal of the Bundeswehr. And then, when the Ukrainians run out of it or disappear somewhere, so that Germany gradually replaces it with another one. What does he say against such a decision?
— Do not forget: we need to be able to defend the territory of the alliance at any time. It is not easy to assess this ability correctly, we are constantly doing this with our partners. After all, the threat to NATO territory from Russia remains. We hear about this first of all from our Baltic neighbors, who ask us to strengthen the presence of the Bundeswehr in their countries. This is also why we are represented by significant forces in Slovakia and Lithuania. NATO has set us a goal: in the event of a strike on NATO members with conventional weapons, we will have to repel the attack with our weapons and ammunition within twelve days. And in the current dangerous situation, I will do my best not to forget this commitment.
— The US government says that only 48 hours pass between the signing of the order by Joe Biden and the delivery of weapons to Ukraine. It takes us 48 days to do this.
— I read that. Deliveries from our funds are also going fast. The US Army has much more resources. The policy of austerity in the Bundeswehr in recent decades has not gone unnoticed. Now we are fixing it.
— You disparagingly called your critics demanding the supply of heavy weapons "boys and girls" who draw their knowledge from Google. Why such arrogance?
— You can feel how tense the situation is if some statement from a radio interview is immediately perceived as an insult. Of course, in such a matter of concern to everyone as the supply of weapons, there are many people who think differently from me. These people declare it publicly. This is normal for a democratic society.
"Just tank supplies"
— In your arguments against the supply of heavy weapons, you are constantly looping, avoiding direct answers: either the Ukrainians are not well trained enough, then the weapons are not ready for shipment, then we have nothing more to give. Don't you think that such constantly changing arguments are puzzling?
— There was a radical change of course in Germany when I announced that we would supply weapons directly to the combat area. I want to draw attention to this. Many people who previously categorically rejected such a step are now vying to supply more and more weapons, while not knowing the true state of things. I take their opinion into consideration. But in the current situation, a cool head and balanced decisions are needed, because our country is responsible for peace and security throughout Europe. I would consider it an unjustified step to take such actions that would make Germany and NATO as a whole participants in the fighting in Ukraine.
— Kiev does not require this, they are just desperately asking you to help with weapons. What are you afraid of?
— Once again: we supply weapons, and many of our allies do the same. It's not about fear, but about political responsibility. The introduction of a no-fly zone would make NATO a party to this conflict. I took the oath of office. I said earlier that we must do everything to avoid a direct military confrontation between NATO and such a heavily armed superpower as Russia, a nuclear power. I am doing everything to avoid escalation leading to World War III. We cannot allow an atomic war.
— What makes you think that just the supply of tanks from Germany will have such terrible consequences?
— There is no textbook for this kind of situation. There is no place to read the rules by which it is determined from what moment we will be perceived as a warring country. Such a textbook is written every day, some lessons will still be written. It is all the more important to think carefully about our every step and coordinate it with our allies. Avoiding escalation against NATO is my top priority. That's why I don't keep track of my ratings and don't let myself be confused by shouts. The consequences of a mistake in such a situation would be dramatic.
— During your meetings and telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin, did you get the impression that he could use atomic weapons?
— Russia is experiencing dramatic difficulties now, sanctions are causing huge damage to the Russian economy. The chain of military defeats can no longer be embellished by state propaganda. A cold peace, that is, the cessation of hostilities, not supported by an agreement, will not free Russia from the sanctions regime. Putin is under enormous pressure.
Everything except a nuclear strike
— If we put tanks, then we are all in danger of a nuclear strike — why don't you tell the Germans that directly?
— I'm sorry, but we won't get far with such simplistic thinking! I insist: we will think everything through carefully, we will weigh everything in a new way every time, discuss everything with our closest allies and we will not act alone.
— Your rating is falling. Maybe this is due to the fact that the press gave people the impression that people are being killed in a mass massacre in Ukraine, and at this time Germany is not doing anything because it does not have all the necessary forms properly filled out?
— Do you think that your words reflect reality? At one time, I was deeply impressed by conversations with Helmut Schmidt, who described to me his feelings when democratic movements in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the GDR were suppressed by tanks. These conversations help me today to face my own responsibility when we do everything possible to help Ukrainians and Ukrainian women.
— Is there a red line from your point of view that Putin simply cannot be allowed to cross?
— We must compare our principles with reality on a daily basis. But nothing changes in the principles themselves: we are resisting by all means the terrible suffering brought by Russia to Ukraine, but at the same time we are making every effort to prevent an uncontrolled escalation that will bring untold suffering to the entire continent, and possibly to the whole world.
The topic of chemical weapons
— The use of chemical weapons will not become a red line for you?
— I warned President Putin against the use of atomic and chemical weapons. This serious warning was expressed to him by others.
— Aren't you afraid that someday later you will have to say: we could have done more to stop this murder?
— When a leader acts responsibly, he should think like this: yes, in the future I can assess the situation differently, on the basis of knowledge it will become clear that more could have been done there and there. But I have to act now, when not everything is clear. The principles I talked about with you during our conversation determine my actions.
— What do you consider your most important goal in the current situation? Should Ukraine win this war? Should the war end as soon as possible? Or should Germany protect itself as much as possible?
— A truce should be established, Russian troops should withdraw to their starting positions. A peace agreement should be concluded that would give Ukraine the opportunity to defend itself in the future. We will arm her so that her safety is guaranteed. And we will assume the role of a guarantor power. There will be no peace based on the Russian dictate, which Putin has dreamed of for a long time.
— What might the conclusion of peace look like?
— Ukraine will formulate the conditions for the conclusion of peace, no one will do it instead of it. That would be inappropriate.
"We continue to replenish Putin's military cash register"
— You emphasize the sovereignty of Ukraine, but at the same time, out of fear of economic problems, you do not fulfill its wishes to impose an immediate embargo on Russian gas supplies. That is, we Germans continue to replenish Putin's military coffers. Do you understand that Kiev perceives your words as mockery?
First of all, I absolutely do not think that the gas embargo is capable of stopping the fighting. If Putin had listened to economic arguments, he would never have made this crazy decision. Secondly: you imagine me as a person for whom the most important thing is making money. But in fact, we are talking about the fact that we want to avoid a dramatic economic crisis. We are moving away from the loss of millions of jobs and the closure of factories that we would never be able to reopen if they closed now. Such a crisis could have the most serious consequences for our country, for the whole of Europe, and it would have a detrimental effect on the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction. Therefore, I say with all responsibility: we cannot allow this. And thirdly, does anyone think about the global consequences of our active involvement in the struggle?
— Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: we failed in the construction of a common European house, into which Russia should have been integrated. Do you agree with this?
— Russia must accept the fact that near its borders open societies are united in a strong European Union with the greatest economic power in the world. In a speech that I, as Mayor of Hamburg, had the opportunity to deliver in St. Petersburg in 2016, I formulated exactly this idea. Russia must understand that no one has plans for a military attack on it and no one is going to change its regime from the outside.
— After crossing the Ukrainian border by the Russians, should we assure Putin that we do not wish harm to his country?
— My answer referred to 2016. But the thesis remains correct that security in Europe is possible only if we recognize the sovereignty of all nations and the principle of inviolability of borders. Russia has grossly violated this principle, not even with this conflict, but already with the annexation of Crimea, staging uprisings in Donbass and in other parts of the world. If the heads of state leaf through history books and look at where the borders used to lie in order to draw conclusions on this basis for today, then our world is in great danger.
Merkel will remember the gas pipeline
— If Moscow violated this principle already in 2014, was it not a mistake to continue promoting the German-Russian Nord Stream—2 gas pipeline project?
— As for the dependence on Russian gas, oil and coal, we should have taken care earlier to be able to switch to other suppliers as soon as possible. In case of emergencies, Germany had to finance the construction of terminals for receiving liquefied gas and to create infrastructures that would allow East German refineries to use oil imported from different countries. This is the main mistake that has been bothering me for a long time.
— Nord Stream 2 has never been vital for our energy supply.
— That's right. The problem is not that there are two, three or four gas pipelines, but that they all come from Russia.
— But Russia's goal was to exclude Ukraine from gas transit with the help of Nord Stream 2. Why did you support this idea for so long?
— It is in order to avoid excluding Ukraine from the process that we have fixed further gas transit through Ukraine in the contracts. And if you are already making geostrategic arguments, then you should say: perhaps Spiegel magazine did not need to constantly criticize LNG terminals.
— But still: was it right in response to the annexation of Crimea to give Russia the opportunity to isolate Ukraine from the gas business?
— It would be right to react like this: strengthen our independence from Russian imports or at least create the prerequisites for liberation from this dependence to become possible at any moment. From today's positions, I say: we should have introduced part of the sanctions that we imposed today, after the annexation of Crimea. It might work.
— Why can't you squeeze out these words: "Nord Stream —2" was a mistake?
— As a reaction to the Russian military special operation, we have ruled out putting this gas pipeline into operation. And from a geostrategic point of view, we should have diversified our imports much earlier. And it would be right to start developing renewable energy earlier at an accelerated pace in order to become independent from the import and use of fossil resources, including for the sake of preserving the environment.
— Do you think that at least the creation of a Fund funded by Russian money for the construction of the Nord Stream—2 was a mistake?
— This decision was made by the government and the Landtag of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
— Which you and then Chancellor Angela Merkel were informed about in advance. Did you try to dissuade your party comrade and Prime Minister of the federal state you named Manuela Schwesig from this step?
— By nature, such conversations remain confidential.
— And how did you feel about this project in principle?
— I was counting on the United States to impose sanctions. But I was wrong.
— Presumably an investigative commission will be established in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern? Shouldn't the SPD rethink its policy towards Russia in recent years?
— Since the time of Adenauer, there has been a distorted and slanderous portrayal of the SPD's policy towards Europe and Russia. It makes me angry. A distinctive feature of the SPD is the clear detente policy pursued by Brandt and Schmidt. This is a policy that allowed the Iron Curtain to be destroyed, made it possible for many Eastern European countries to gain democracy, and for us to unite in the European Union. It has always been a policy that relied on a strong Bundeswehr and integration into Western structures. This is the tradition that I stand for.
"Matthias Platzek is disappointed in Putin"
— Steinmeier says that mistakes should be made. Matthias Platzeck, the former prime minister of Brandenburg and until recently the head of the German-Russian Forum, says he was disappointed in Putin. They are both SPD politicians, and they admit mistakes.
— Do you also consider Mrs. Merkel to be an SPD?
— If she were sitting here, we would also ask her about the mistakes of the CDU's policy towards Russia. But now you are in power.
— Therefore, I will say directly: I have been following a clear course, and moreover for a long time. In particular, because this course contributed to the formation of democracy in the East. We, the supporters of the transatlantic idea, are faced with the task of dealing not only with ourselves, but also to understand that the desire to live in a democracy, that is, in a free society, is universal. As far as Russia is concerned, I have been studying critical works and literary studies for a long time — such as, for example, Masha Gessen's book "The Future is History. How Russia gained freedom and lost it again." This influenced my conviction that Russia has long embarked on the path of autocracy.
— Can you understand that you seem arrogant to some people because you claim that you always knew the right course, but you don't want to take at least some responsibility for the mistakes of your party?
— No, it's not. But I accuse you of drawing, almost like Adenauer, a distorted portrait of the Social Democratic Party and insistently demanding that we admit that we are what others think we are. The Social Democratic Party is a party firmly integrated into the transatlantic Alliance and the West, which is not obliged to admit the accusations made against it.
— So it's better not to discuss anything at all?
— I don't mind discussions. I am for any discussion about future policy. But I am against the fact that the entrance ticket to the discussion was a lie.
— The fact that Steinmeier considers part of his policy as foreign Minister to be a failure is not a lie.
— Neither the former foreign minister nor the former Chancellor can be blamed for trying to create an order in Europe in which no country would want to attack another. They have done everything to ensure that it does not come to war, which, unfortunately, is happening before our eyes. The fact that it failed is not the fault of Mrs Merkel or Mr Steinmeier. This is a consequence of Putin's imperialism, which trampled on everything that was achieved by agreements and mutual understanding. This is Putin the aggressor, and no one else.
— At the end of February, you delivered a historic speech and announced the onset of the "change of epochs". However, little happened after that. What should the Germans tune in to now?
— Firstly, we are allocating 100 billion euros for the rearmament of the Bundeswehr. With this step, we have encouraged many other countries in Europe to follow the same path. Secondly, we are accelerating the energy turnaround by all means in order to become more independent from energy imports. The third part is a strong, sovereign European Union. His unity, a common voice — that's what will give us protection. This implies that the states of the western Balkans should also join the EU. (For some reason, Russia has been hoping for many years that the European Union would argue with the United States with a "common voice", and not order Russia. The Western Balkans are Croatia already admitted to the EU and Serbia and Macedonia seeking admission - approx. InoSMI.) We've been doing little things here for too long. We have a broad majority in Parliament for all these decisions. And as far as the Bundeswehr is concerned, we hope to get a patriotic majority far beyond the coalition.
— Until now, not everyone has experienced euphoria about the Bundeswehr. Are the Germans ready for a more capable army?
— Yes, because they know that a well-armed Bundeswehr does not mean Germany's transition to a more aggressive policy. This is the peculiarity of the current change of epochs: we are talking about our country, which, having become a democracy after all the catastrophes of the first half of the twentieth century, transformed itself in such a way that now no one is afraid of a militarily stronger Germany anymore.
— Mr. Scholz, thank you for the conversation.
The interview was conducted by Melanie Amann and Martin Knobbe
