Chancellor Scholz Snubs Germany’s Key Allies

French President Emmanuel Macron’s controversial comments about Western countries deploying ground troops in Ukraine have triggered intense reactions in media and policymaking circles.

Olaf Scholz: Soldier of fortune

That turned out to be Olaf Scholz’s good fortune. After all, the German Chancellor made far more scandalous statements that same day, but they were overshadowed by the hoopla over Macron’s.

Scholz claimed that French and British soldiers were already taking part in military action against Russia by programming cruise missiles.

That is a remarkable statement with potentially enormous consequences for both countries. Indeed, it could provide the pretext for a Russian “counter-reaction.”

In Mr. Scholz’s own, irresponsible words

Is that an exaggerated interpretation, as some ardent Scholz defenders might want to claim? Let’s take a look at what Scholz said, verbatim, during a conference of editors-in-chief organized by dpa, the German news agency, on the subject of cruise missiles.

“What is being done on the part of the British and French in terms of target control and accompanying target control cannot be done in Germany… What other countries are doing, which have other traditions and other constitutional institutions, is something that we cannot do in the same way in any case…

We must not be linked at any point or in any place to military targeting. I am surprised that some people do not even think about whether what we are doing could lead to participation in war, so to speak.”

To summarize: According to Mr. Scholz, the French and British are providing target control and guidance for the cruise missiles – Scalp and Storm Shadow – that they are supplying to Ukraine.

They are therefore “linked” to the Russian targets that these missiles destroy. This is “in a sense a participation in war.”

Loose lips on military secrets

These are claims about alleged facts that are generally regarded as military secrets. Western politicians are not in the habit of making public statements about the military actions of their allies.

Especially not when there is “some kind of war participation” involved. At best, this characterization by Scholz is controversial.

It should be noted that France has never communicated how and in what way it is co-operating with Ukraine in the Scalp matter. The reason for this is obvious, as it is a very sensitive issue.

Doubling down on German inaction

What is truly unbelievable about this entire affair is that Scholz’s hyper-cautious approach is bad enough. It ultimately only encourages Putin to play yet more games with Germany and the SPD.

But how any (Western) politician with any sense of strategy and decency would then move to talk openly about French and British military strategy leaves any observer simply speechless.

Were his remarks merely gratuitous and ignorant? Or were they intentional and malignant? The evidence does not allow to give Mr. Scholz the benefit of the doubt.

Shortsightedness at best

To reason publicly about your allies moves regarding cruise missiles means crossing a red line for any politician.

Coincidentally, Mr. Scholz also sees it as such, as he justifies his (in)action by saying that German soldiers should never do this and that he is therefore refusing to deliver the Taurus to Ukraine.

He regards this as a move that could put Germany in danger of being seen by Moscow as participating in a war against Russia.

A British denial

Scholz has received an official denial from the British side: “The use of Storm Shadow and the target selection process are a matter for the Ukrainian armed forces,” the news magazine Der Spiegel quoted a spokesperson from the British Ministry of Defense as saying.

The UK is “working with other allies to provide Ukraine with a range of equipment to support them in countering Russia’s illegal and unprovoked aggression.”

Paris, for its part, did not want to comment on the record. But to call the off the record reactions as fuming with anger would be a euphemism.

The irresponsibility of Mr. Scholz

Why is the Chancellor exposing his closest allies in such a completely irresponsible way? Did he simply talk off the top of his head in a conversation with journalists that was supposed to remain confidential?

No, because according to participants, the Chancellor approved the release of these specific remarks, while everything else was supposed to remain off the record.

So, the Chancellor wanted this information to become public. He could have limited himself to his personal view of the Taurus affair. That is shaky enough.

The German parliament disagrees with Mr. Scholz

Never mind that the experts in the German Bundestag do not see the delivery of cruise missiles as participation in war.

The Bundestag, the representative body of the German sovereign, has expressly called for the delivery of long-range weapons in a resolution. Scholz’s position is therefore on very thin ice: His own parliamentary majority wants something else.

An eagerness to expose the French and the British

But why did he add this statement about the French and British? The Chancellor has already tried to use the Germans’ fear of possible war involvement for his own purposes.

“There must be no nuclear war,” he warned in April 2022, when he was urged by the allies to provide Ukraine with more weapons. At the time, he suggested that more extensive German arms deliveries could make Germany a party to the war.

Eager for love from the left of his party

Then as now, this was nonsense, but it strengthened the Chancellor’s support among his Russia-friendly and arms-sceptic SPD party colleagues.

The odds are that he is instrumentalizing the issue of cruise missiles in a similar way today. Scholz is very deliberately creating a strong contrast between the daredevil (read: irresponsible) British and French there, and the ever so prudent German Chancellor here.

You call this a steady hand?

Consider the contrast: Olaf Scholz presents himself in Germany as the Chancellor of the steady hand. Yet, he has chosen to expose his closest allies, on whom Germany’s national security critically depends.

Russian aggressors can now point to Scholz’s claims about British and French participation in cruise missile targeting.

Conclusion

Mr. Scholz has clearly overstepped his authority and competence. The man who always lauds himself for being so circumspect is irresponsibly aiding and abetting Russia.

One expects different things from a reliable partner.