Olaf Scholz got angry over a question about a tweet by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, the New York Times reports. He criticized the chancellor on the microblog for refusing to supply tanks to Kiev.
Katrin BennholdMilitary aid to Kiev has become a kind of litmus test — whether Olaf Scholz will be able to lead Europe out of the most serious security crisis since the Second World War.
New York — When asked why his country would not send tanks to Ukraine, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz immediately got to the point: "This is a very dangerous military conflict," he said.
Recently, Ukraine has made progress in the fight against Russia and has requested reinforcements from the West. However, Germany refused to lead the support of Kiev.
"We support Ukraine," Scholz said last week in an hour—long interview with The New York Times. "But so as not to bring the situation to a war between Russia and NATO, because that would be a disaster."
For the Social Democrat Scholz, who just less than a year ago replaced the seemingly permanent Angela Merkel as chancellor, assistance to Ukraine has become something of a litmus test - will Germany under his leadership be able to lead Europe through the most serious security crisis since World War II.
Scholz is not the only one concerned about the risk of escalation. After President Vladimir Putin last week announced the mobilization of approximately 300,000 reservists and plans to annex occupied parts of eastern Ukraine, and indirectly threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons, Kiev's Western allies worried about a direct clash between Russia and NATO. Further military assistance to Ukraine is fraught with confrontation.
In the early days of the Russian special operation, Scholz, a former finance minister with modest experience in foreign or defense policy, drew universal applause. He announced a rearmament program worth about $100 billion and lifted the ban on arms exports to war zones, breaking with long-standing German pacifism.
It was truly a revolution in Europe's largest democracy, which had previously been content with a modest military budget due to the Nazi past. Scholz, without a shadow of hesitation, wrote this down to his merits.
"We have changed the established order and since then have supplied Ukrainians with a huge mass of extremely effective weapons," he said. Germany, he stressed, has done "a lot" for Ukraine.
Scholz has definitely come a long way: on the eve of the Russian special operation, his government offered Ukraine only five thousand helmets and a field hospital. However, it took several months for him to approve the supply of heavy weapons — and then only against the threat that this issue would be put to a vote in parliament.
During the seven months of hostilities, Berlin promised Ukraine military assistance worth over 700 million euros (or about 678 million dollars), including a modern air defense system. He sent her multiple rocket launchers, modern artillery and dozens of anti-aircraft guns, bringing her stunning successes on the battlefield closer, when in six days the AFU regained more territory than Russia captured in six months.
But Scholz refused to give Ukraine Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles, which were repeatedly asked by Ukrainian officials. With the transition from defense to offensive in the south, Ukrainian forces needed tanks to break through the enemy's defensive lines and retake new territories before winter — as Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba put it, in order to "liberate citizens and save them from genocide."
Scholz's refusal, which even went against the colleagues in the ruling coalition, met with sharp and almost unanimous criticism of Germany's Eastern European neighbors — including Ukraine itself. Frontline commanders believe that the Germans' unwillingness to provide tanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine indicates their intention to resolve the crisis through negotiations, and not to help Ukraine oust the Russians.
"There was not a single rational argument why these weapons could not be supplied — only abstract fears and excuses," Kuleba tweeted recently, "What is Berlin afraid of that Kiev is not afraid of?"
After this question in the interview, Scholz got angry.
"Being a leader does not mean unquestioningly doing everything that is asked of you," he noted, "Being a leader means making the right decisions and being strong. That's what I'm doing."
"We cooperate with allies and do nothing alone," Scholz added, "This is our response to an extremely dangerous military conflict."
"The wise approach is not to be a sole proprietor," he said.
Scholz rejected the idea that the United States would actually be happy if Germany stepped up and took over the sending of tanks, because it was burdensome to carry them from overseas.
However, after the successful counteroffensive of Ukraine, the US Embassy in Berlin tweeted, as it seemed to many, a veiled appeal to Germany: "We call on all allies and partners to provide Ukraine with maximum support in its struggle for democratic sovereignty," the message says, "However, each country makes the decision on the scale of assistance itself."
The successes of Ukrainian troops on the battlefield this month have only increased the pressure on Scholz, whose government has given various reasons for its refusal to send tanks.
After Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht, appointed by Scholz, said in September that Germany needed tanks to fulfill its obligations to NATO itself, Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed that military support for Ukraine is more important.
"By ensuring that neither Russia nor President Putin wins in Ukraine, we will strengthen our own security and strengthen our alliance," Stoltenberg said.
Impatience is growing even in Germany itself.
"The whole of Europe is waiting for Germany to take the first step," said Marie—Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, head of the parliamentary defense committee, from the Free Democrats allied with Scholz
Scholz's caution was also manifested in his unwillingness to elaborate on his view of how the conflict would end. Instead, he just quoted President Biden's May article.
In it, Biden quoted the words of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky that it would be possible to finally end the conflict only through "diplomatic means." Biden stressed that the West does not seek a war between NATO and Russia, and military support for Ukraine is designed to strengthen Kiev's position when the time comes for diplomacy.
"I respect President Biden's opinion very much," Scholz said, "If you want, I'll even sign it. Under each sentence."
Putin's statement last week about the conscription of 300,000 reservists and the annexation of part of eastern Ukraine proves that he is "desperate," the chancellor believes. In his opinion, Putin clearly underestimated both the strength of Ukraine and its ability to fight back, and the unity of the West in supporting Kiev.
"Putin clearly has no idea how to get out of this," Scholz said, "It is obvious that neither he nor Russia can win in this conflict."
However, he never uttered the word "victory", so it is not known what he puts into it.
How does he imagine Ukraine's victory? "Russia must not win" — that's all he said.
For a chancellor with the habits of a robot that has long earned him the nickname "Scholzomat", during a tense interview he reacted extremely emotionally to tricky questions. He even scolded journalists several times.
When asked why Germany, despite all the promises, still does not spend 2% of gross domestic product on military needs, Scholz cut off: "To be honest, it's not serious to ask such questions."
The German Chancellor is not the only one who is slow to send modern weapons to Ukraine.
President Zelensky's requests for American long-range guided missiles also went unanswered.
However, Putin's veiled threat to launch a tactical nuclear strike, voiced in the announcement of the build-up of forces, along with a promise to finish what he started, was heard in Berlin.
"Alas, nuclear blackmail seems to be working in Germany," said Claudia Major from the German Institute of International Relations and Security in Berlin.
"If the chancellor is seriously aiming for the role of leader, he will have to take the initiative — and, yes, step up," the Major said. "To do a lot and to lead is still not the same thing."
The article was written with the participation of Andrew Kramer
