He stands before the Bundestag: today Scholz has to explain his no to Stier

class=”sc-cffd1e67-0 iQNQmc”>

Chancellor Olaf Scholz (65) will answer questions for 70 minutes in the Bundestag on Wednesday. It is already clear what the focus will be on: why Scholz remains adamant in his rejection of the delivery of the Taurus missiles to the war zone, despite urgent requests from Ukraine, despite all the advice of key allies and despite the opposition of both coalition partners Partners? The CDU/CSU faction wants to ‘grill’ him, as they say in political and media jargon. Chance of success: moderate.

What the Taurus debate is about

The Taurus is a cruise missile produced in Germany and used by the Bundeswehr with a range of more than 500 kilometers and maximum accuracy. From Ukraine you can hit Moscow with five-meter rockets. However, the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky says it has no plans to do so. She wants to use the Taurus to destroy the Russian forces’ supply lines far behind the front lines. That is why it submitted an application to the federal government in May last year to supply this weapon system.

In October, Scholz refused a Taurus delivery for the first time – without providing a detailed explanation. This only followed on February 26 at the dpa’s editorial conference in a conversation with journalists and in the following days at other public events. However, Scholz has not yet commented on this in the Bundestag.

As Scholz argues

The Chancellor points to concerns that Germany could become involved in the war in Ukraine with the delivery of the Taurus. His argument is threefold. Because the Taurus can reach Russian territory as far as Moscow, Scholz does not want to hand over control of this weapon to the Ukrainians. To maintain control, German soldiers would have to participate in targets – from Germany or in Ukraine. For Scholz, both are ruled out because, according to him, that could mean involvement in the war. If one wants to remain on the safe side legally, the Bundestag should also agree to such a deployment of German soldiers. In other countries such as Great Britain and France this is not the case.

What the Union accuses Scholz of: false information

The Union accuses the Chancellor of giving the impression that the Taurus cannot be deployed without German soldiers. However, the conversation between four Bundeswehr officers intercepted by Russia proves that this is entirely possible if Ukrainian soldiers are trained properly. Foreign CDU politician Roderich Kiesewetter says Scholz worked “with false information”.

However, Scholz never explicitly spoke out about the technical feasibility of a Taurus operation without German soldiers. When asked whether it wouldn’t work without German soldiers, he said at the dpa editorial conference: “What other countries do, which have different traditions and different constitutional institutions, is something that we cannot do in the same way.”

What she also accuses him of: indiscretion towards the Allies

That brings us to the Union’s second accusation. Scholz “explained” how the British and French operate their cruise missiles. What is mainly meant is this sentence: “What the British and French are doing in terms of target control and support for target control cannot be done in Germany.” Scholz is not talking about soldiers in this context. However, there had already been speculation that the British and French would support the programming of their Storm Shadow and Scalp cruise missiles, which were supplied to Ukraine, with their own forces. However, this was only explicitly mentioned by Air Force Inspector Ingo Gerhartz in the intercepted conversation about Stier. The British have “a few people on the ground” to support the Ukrainians, but the French do not.

Could Scholz change his mind again?

Probably not at first. Scholz has spoken a strong word. “I am the Chancellor, and therefore this applies.” However, he didn’t commit forever. If the situation in the war zone changes significantly, you may still change your mind. It is also unclear what effect it would have if the Americans decided to supply cruise missiles with a longer range. So far, Ukraine has only received nearly two dozen of its Atacms with a limited range of 165 kilometers. But Ukraine wants Atacms with a range of 300 kilometers.

In any case, the pressure from the Bundestag will not lead to the Chancellor changing course for the time being. When Parliament votes again on Thursday on the Union’s request for delivery, there will almost certainly not be a majority in favor. As things stand now, only individual coalition members are likely to vote in favor of the motion. (SDA)

Source: Blick