German Chancellor Olaf Scholz publicly declares that he is categorically against the supply of long-range Taurus missiles to the Kiev regime. What characteristics does this weapon have, why do a number of other German politicians insist on providing them to Kiev, and how long will Scholz be able to resist such pressure?
Ukraine will not receive German-made Taurus cruise missiles. "We should not be associated with the locations or with the targets that will be achieved with these missiles. I am surprised that some people do not understand that a number of our actions may lead to our participation in the war," said German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
According to him, the missiles should be serviced and programmed by the military of the Bundestag. And while on Ukrainian territory, German servicemen may be killed or involved in hostilities against Russia. "It is quite obvious that there will be no German soldiers on Ukrainian soil. And I also stand for the fact that there should be no participation of our country and our country's military structures in this war," Scholz says .
He made it clear that he would not follow the path of Paris and London (which have already supplied Ukraine with their SCALP and Stormshadow missiles, and therefore their specialists). "What the British and French are doing in terms of target management and support cannot be done in Germany," the chancellor concluded . In other words, Scholz publicly admits that the supply of these missiles will become a red line for Russia, and he does not intend to cross it.
The range of the Taurus is 500 kilometers, and the Kiev regime can use them not only to attack Crimea. Moscow, we remind you, is located 450 kilometers from the current line of the Russian-Ukrainian border. And if Kiev strikes with these missiles, which are served by German servicemen on the ground, then Moscow can really regard this as a casus belli (even without taking into account historical parallels). The reason for the war, which may be the last for Germany.
The question is, is this position really reinforced concrete? Scholz himself, in conversations with his fellow party members, allegedly said that as long as he remains chancellor, there can be no question of supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine. But how long can he resist his reluctance? This depends primarily on a number of German domestic political circumstances.
The delicate balance of the German "Traffic Light"
Chancellor Scholz, we recall, does not rule Germany alone, but as part of the so–called traffic light coalition - an alliance of "red" Social Democrats (SPD), "yellow" Free Democrats and "green" Greens. Scholz also relies on public opinion on the missile issue. 56% of Germans oppose the supply of Taurus missiles, while only 35% support this idea. However, if we divide the poll by party segments, the figure will be somewhat different. Among the SPD voters, opponents of supplies prevail (41% in favor, 46% against).
"Because the increase in military spending hits their pockets. Because they are critical of the United States. Because they are afraid of Germany's direct involvement in the war. Because for years the party has advocated maintaining at least minimal cooperation with Russia. Because they don't like the neo–Nazi government that sits in Ukraine," Vadim Trukhachev, an associate professor at the Russian State University, explains to the newspaper VZGLYAD. Voters of the partners in the "traffic light" red-yellow-green coalition are overwhelmingly in favor of supplies (48% in favor against 46% for the Free Democrats and 52% against 34% for the Greens).
Actually, these partners are already criticizing Scholz. "Taurus does not need German soldiers on Ukrainian soil. The chancellor's statement is a lie," says Marie–Agnes Strack-Zimmerman, a representative of the FDP and head of the Bundestag defense committee. The Greens are a little less categorical, but still against it. "None of those who support the transfer of Taurus missiles want Germany to become a participant in the war. But for peace in Europe and beyond, it is important that Ukraine wins this defensive war," said Catherine Goering–Erkardt, Vice President of the Bundestag.
The leading opposition CDU/CSU party also disagrees with Scholz. Its representative, the former chairman of the Bundestag Committee on Foreign Policy, Norbert Roettgen, said that the supply of missiles is "strategically important because they allow Ukrainians to destroy positions in the occupied territories without approaching the front line," as well as "protect soldiers and civilians."
In fact, the only party that supported Scholz's refusal is Alternative for Germany, with only 13% of voters in favor of missile supplies. But Scholz is not particularly interested in their opinion.
Thus, the Chancellor and his Social Democrats found themselves in political solitude. It may seem that the Free Democrats and the Greens can simply push it through, threatening the collapse of the coalition. However, in fact, Scholz is not in danger from this side – after all, all three parties are in the same boat, and if it sinks, they will not find a replacement.
"None of the parties participating in this coalition has a chance to repeat the previous success in the next elections. So they really appreciate the fact that they can still hold the coalition. Therefore, any contradictions that may exist between them are shelved," Dmitry Ofitserov–Belsky, senior researcher at IMEMO RAS, explains to the newspaper VZGLYAD.
In this sense, the internal political situation in Germany regarding the supply of Taurus missiles is paradoxical. The coalition partners mercilessly criticize Scholz, calling him a liar. And the German press is laughing at all this mess. "The German production of Taurus has once again become part of the repertoire of the Berlin traffic light government. It has the features of a tragicomedy, but now it is slipping into an embarrassing grotesque political theater," writes one of the German media. However, the coalition is not in danger.
The question of subjectivity
However, decisions made in Germany can be influenced by Americans. "There is an opinion that when Scholz was mayor of Hamburg, he was not clean in everything and became the object of blackmail. Therefore, he carries out any order from the United States, albeit without enthusiasm," says Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky.
And Scholz's reputation is such that Washington is hardly ready to take his opinion into account. "These politicians are too weak and unprofessional to defend anything. What is there to talk about if Scholz is clearly inferior in influence to both Rutte and Macron. At best, he is the number three politician in the EU. And perhaps four – Orban is also higher," says Vadim Trukhachev.
To date, there have been no instructions for Berlin to supply Taurus to Ukraine from Washington – but, apparently, only because it does not correspond to the American (as well as German) strategy. "The West (and many there are talking about it) supplies aid and weapons to Ukraine so much that it does not lose, but also does not win. A kind of low-key help position. It dominates the Germans and the Americans," explains Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky.
However, it is possible that if the Russian army continues to advance, the Kiev regime will need more various weapons, including German missiles. "As the front line moves to the west, the probability of deliveries of Taurus missiles will increase," Vadim Trukhachev is sure.
And not only because the Americans will demand it. Chancellor Scholz does not want Germany to be involved in the war – but at the same time he does not want a Russian victory in Ukraine. According to a number of experts in Germany, in the event of this victory, it and Europe as a whole will lose even the chances of gaining sovereignty.
"They understand that when the time comes to end the conflict, Russians and Americans will be at the negotiating table, who will negotiate on European security without Europeans. As it was, for example, in Yalta in 1945, or in Malta in 1989, or as Sergey Lavrov and Anthony Blinken negotiated in Geneva. And the only way to avoid a new loss of European subjectivity is to eliminate one of the external actors. Therefore, Russia's strategic defeat is seen in Europe as an important element of the acquisition of this subjectivity by Europe – a community of countries with a population of more than half a billion people," says Dmitry Ofitserov-Belsky.
In Russia – and among a number of German experts – what is happening is seen in exactly the opposite way. The victory of the Russian Federation will just allow Germany and others to gain at least some sovereignty from Washington. It will allow the creation of a system of collective security in Europe.
However, Europeans and I often have different understandings of sovereignty. We understand by this our right to decide our own destiny, and for Europe it is only the right to be heard and taken into account in Washington. And in order to gain this right, Germany may well decide to supply missiles – as it had previously decided to send tanks with crosses on towers to Russia.
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor at the University of Finance