An international shame, a propaganda success for the Kremlin: the scandal surrounding a leaked conversation between senior Bundeswehr officers casts a shadow over the German security apparatus.
It is still not entirely clear how Russian authorities were able to listen to the February 19 conference call and later publish it. In the conversation, the officers discussed how the German Taurus cruise missile could be used against the Russian military if it were delivered to Ukraine.
Experts speak of what is probably the largest data breach in the German security apparatus in years. The political pressure to quickly clarify the matter is all the greater – also in view of possible further leaks.
What happened last?
It had to happen on Monday evening German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius (SPD) for a report to the Bundestag. The Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Carsten Breuer, and the Chairman of the Military Counterintelligence Service (MAD), Martina Rosenberg, were also invited to a special meeting of the Defense Committee.
However, someone was missing who shares responsibility for the scandal and now has to fear disciplinary consequences: Air Force Inspector Ingo Gerhartz. The MAD is currently investigating the lieutenant general, so no summons has been issued, according to traffic light circles.
The opposition demands clarification – Olaf Scholz is in hiding
Even in the run-up to the special session, the political stakes were enormous: the opposition demanded uncompromising clarification.
But even in the ranks of the traffic light coalition, people did not shy away from plain words. Konstantin von Notz (Alliance 90/The Greens), chairman of the parliamentary scrutiny committee, and Alexander Hoffmann (CSU), chairman of the Union faction, explained:
The Union was also outraged that Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) did not appear personally before the committee – also to question him again about his Taurus No. However, for obvious reasons, the traffic light representatives did not return the favor.
What new findings are there?
Air Force Inspector Gerhartz also circumvented the regulations
According to the participants, the desire for a full explanation of the data breach dominated the meeting itself. The mood was “not aggressive, not even from the Union,” an MP told T-Online after the meeting. There was also no demand for “heads to roll”.
Instead, the affair is enriched with one spicy detail: As Pistorius announced after the meeting, a second participant had also violated service rules: air force inspector Ingo Gerhartz.
In addition to Brigadier General Frank Gräfe, who dialed into the conference call from Singapore on February 19, Gerhartz was also connected via an unsecured line. However, Pistorius made it clear that no data from Gerhartz had been leaked.
However, as participants reported during the meeting, many questions remain unanswered. The investigation should still reconstruct in detail how exactly the Russian authorities gained access to Brigadier General Gräfe’s smartphone.
It should also be investigated why Gräfe and Gerhartz did not use the intended app on their mobile phone to establish an encrypted connection to the Webex conference call, in short: why Gräfe and Gerhartz violated the regulations, whether out of ignorance, convenience or for other reasons.
What are the consequences of the scandal?
Pistorius once again stands behind his generals
As before, the Defense Minister stood by his general: “I am not prepared, I want to make this clear once again, to go after Putin here and expose my best officers to the question of whether they made a mistake here or not,” Pistorius said. “That would be exactly what Vladimir Putin expects from us.” Shortly after the leak emerged, Pistorius said he would “not sacrifice one of his best officers to Putin’s games”.
The FDP’s defense policy spokesman, Alexander Müller, backed Pistorius with this question: “The minister is right: we should not do Putin a favor by shooting one of our generals now,” Müller told T-Online. There is a legal process that must now be followed. “We should not impose political punishments on a whim.”
In addition, each participant is responsible for any information that he or she may not have made public for confidentiality reasons. “Gerhartz does not bear sole responsibility,” said the FDP politician.
However, there is another question that could have consequences for everyone involved: What of what was discussed should not have been said on the switchboard, even if it was used in a technically perfect manner because it has a higher level of secrecy?
This is now “checked by different people,” according to participants.
Ultimately, heads may not roll, but severe disciplinary penalties may follow.
Sources
(t-online/dsc)
Soource :Watson
I am Amelia James, a passionate journalist with a deep-rooted interest in current affairs. I have more than five years of experience in the media industry, working both as an author and editor for 24 Instant News. My main focus lies in international news, particularly regional conflicts and political issues around the world.
