The “Wall Street Journal” doesn’t give Olaf Scholz a good hair. A new, critical editorial about the German chancellor appears almost daily. In it he is mainly criticized for his Ukraine policy.
Devastating US criticism of the chancellor: “Mr. Scholz is obviously the obstacle in Berlin,” says the American daily “Wall Street Journal” about the German chancellor, describing him “like someone from the last century”.
The German government’s latest steps to provide military aid to Ukraine have been criticized as “an absolute fiasco” – “a farce” and “a peak of embarrassment”.
“Time change? What turning point?” one asks, alluding to Scholz’s historic speech after Moscow’s invasion – “judging by the palaver surrounding the military aid to Ukraine, ‘old Germany’ obviously got nothing at all.”
“Scholzing” is now followed by “Scholz-Bashing”: In parts of the US press, the German Chancellor no longer comes off well.
After the neologism “Scholzing” by the British star historian Timothy Garton Ash received a great deal of attention not only in European but also in the American media, some editorials in the USA now give the impression of “Scholz bashing”.
In German, the English “bashing” is translated as “public, severe to disparaging criticism”.
In particular, the business newspaper “Wall Street Journal” seems to be leaving the German chancellor a good hair at the moment: an editorial critical of Scholz appears almost every day in the influential, conservative daily newspaper.
Before the German government seemed to give in to international pressure last week and finally agreed to the delivery of the Leopard tanks to Ukraine, countless US media outlets reported on the new term “Scholzing”.
On Twitter, historian Garton Ash defined his made-up word as follows: “Scholzing” initially means the announcement of good intentions in relation to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.
But then – just like Scholz is doing – every conceivable reason would be invented to either delay these intentions or, if possible, completely prevent them.
The historian circulated the “Scholzing” term on social media after the Chancellor’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Just one day after Berlin’s decision to deliver the Leopard tanks to Ukraine after all, a headline in the Wall Street Journal said “Tanks but no thanks to Olaf Scholz”. Despite the tanks, they didn’t want to say thank you to the chancellor.
Scholz’s long-running controversy over military aid to Ukraine has been described as “an absolute fiasco” that eventually revealed itself as a “farce”.
“Time change? What turning point?” one asks in the editorial, alluding to Scholz’ historic speech after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Almost a year ago, the Chancellor promised a historic turning point – but the “palaver about the military aid to Ukraine, ‘old Germany’ obviously didn’t notice anything about it”.
Ultimately, the Chancellor then gave in, it is said – but only after he had almost triggered a crisis with Poland. We are talking about the “summit of embarrassment” here.
It is “obvious that Mr. Scholz himself is the obstacle in Berlin”: Leading politicians from all other major parties have spoken out in favor of the tank deliveries, the American readers are told – including some of Scholz’s own party comrades.
The conclusion is: “The chancellor who announced the ‘turning point’ has apparently not changed himself.” Scholz is the wrong politician to follow words with action.” Therefore, further frustration is inevitable in the future.
Barely a day later, there was another, devastating criticism in the renowned daily newspaper: Olaf Scholz “is having a hard time paving Germany’s place in a new, hostile world”.
There are reports of Scholz’s “stubbornness” and his “reluctance to communicate”: the Chancellor would simply refuse to publicly explain his attitudes. This even offends allies, one criticizes.
Ultimately, Scholz’s “obvious stubbornness when he’s under pressure” severely damaged the Chancellor’s image after a year in office, it is said – he makes a hopelessly indecisive impression.
And finally, the “Wall Street Journal” comes to the devastating conclusion: Especially in today’s fast-moving times of immediate and direct political communication, the German chancellor gives the appearance of a person from the past century.
