When Olaf Scholz makes his government statement at nine o’clock on Thursday, he could clarify a few points about Germany’s position on Ukraine. Because there is a lack of clarity on crucial points.
Under what conditions and when is Olaf Scholz going to Ukraine to meet President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in person? The Chancellor’s declaration that he did not want to travel there just for a “photo shoot” and that it was more about things that had to be discussed “concretely” can also be understood as a smokescreen. Was the trip of “his” Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, the leader of the opposition Friedrich Merz and three committee chairmen from the Ampel parties just “photo ops”?
In any case, the “taz” understood Scholz’s statements as a smokescreen. And that’s why she denied her front page with photos that show Scholz in symbolic appointments – with the singer Udo Lindenberg, for example, or the British heirs to the throne Kate and William. “Specifically” one could talk about:
Weapons shipments. For weeks, Scholz, head of the Federal Security Council, has not made a decision on the Marder and Leopard tanks requested by Ukraine, which the defense industry can repair within a few weeks. In the Defense Committee of the Bundestag, the Chancellor said that there would be no further deliveries of arms. Does this mean that after the promised delivery of Cheetah tanks, neither Marder nor Leopard One tanks will be delivered to Ukraine? And why can cheetahs be delivered, but not martens and leos? Where’s the logic in that? This leads to:
Russia. Is the German chancellor following French President Emmanuel Macron’s refusal to “humiliate” Russia? And what follows from this? Macron, like Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, is pushing for a quick ceasefire in the Ukraine war. The Italian head of government said even more: one must now think about a “negotiated peace”. The idea behind this is a “face-saving” solution for the Russians. Is that also Olaf Scholz’s goal: a peace in which the aggressor Vladimir Putin could save face? That leads to:
Ukraine. Why are Germany, France and Italy, the three largest Western European countries, discussing things like ceasefires, peace talks and saving face at a time when Ukraine is winning one military victory after another? Is this a fear of a military “victory” for Ukraine over Russia? Because such a victory, as Germany’s chancellor said, could lead to a further “escalation”?
Zelenskyj commented on the subject of “saving face” in an interview with Italian television. “We want the Russian army to leave our country. We are not on Russian soil.” And more clearly, to Western Europeans: “We don’t want to help Putin save face by paying for it with our country.” And even more clearly, to the French President: Macron is looking “in vain” for a “way out for Russia”. That leads to:
The war goal. Olaf Scholz has so far avoided a clear sentence on this. His standard formulation is: Ukraine must not lose and Russia must not win. The chancellor has thus opted for a defensive wording. In doing so, he avoided an offensive, as defined by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin: Ukraine “can win”, and Russia must be weakened so that it is no longer able to wage a war of aggression like the one in Ukraine, according to the Pentagon boss. Victory for Ukraine, weakening of Russia, these are clear war aims. Where is Olaf Scholz in this relationship? That leads to:
troop withdrawal. For Scholz, Macron and Draghi, a ceasefire comes first. Scholz said on RTL that he had requested this from Putin during his last phone call. Scholz then tweeted three points.
There is no point four. It could read: Russia must completely withdraw its troops from free and sovereign Ukraine. This is the prerequisite for a ceasefire.
Sure: Scholz once said that the Russians had to withdraw their troops from Ukraine. So far, however, Scholz has not followed Zelenskyi’s line that a ceasefire can only be granted on the condition that Putin withdraws his soldiers from Ukraine. But such clarification would be important.
Scholz’s position can be summarized as follows:
Germany does not impose a gas embargo because this would affect Germany more than Russia.
Germany is no longer supplying heavy weapons because this would provoke Russia to “escalate”.
Germany wants peace, but so far no “victory” for Ukraine.
Germany rejects a “dictated peace” but believes in a “diplomatic solution”.
The Chancellor says he is clearly on the side of Ukraine. This is only the half truth. The other is that Scholz takes Russia’s interests into account in his decisions.
It can now be seen that not a single German Chancellor has communicated as intensively as Olaf Scholz is doing now. It’s happening almost every day now. Scholz’s attempts to explain his policies in the Bundestag, on television and on social media have so far not been understood.
Which is certainly not due to the audience. The sender and receiver will only understand each other if the messages are clear and do not obscure anything. One last:
When Scholz speaks, it’s not just to the Germans. Ukraine is listening, Russia is listening, the Americans are listening, the Poles are listening.
With every clarity that Scholz lacks, clarity about Germany grows abroad.
