Free the Taurus
Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s approval rating hits a historic low, sinking to unprecedented depths
In politics… everything, every action and inaction will have a political consequence. Often, it is the accumulation of consequences that produce a result.
It is unfair to blame Germany for its support for Ukraine.
For the love of god, I cannot and will not blame Germany as an unhelpful global partner. Not the German people who continue to generously take money out of their pockets to assist Ukraine. Not the Scholz administration for ramping up support to Ukraine faster than anyone else in 2023. Not the gigantic German bureaucracy that made it so simple for Ukrainian refugees to wade through the never ending German paper trails.
They have helped. All of them. Let us recognize and applaud where credit is due; and criticize where it is warranted. Giving 27.8 billion euros to Ukraine by a country dancing on the ledge of a recession is not a joke. They did and they are more than likely to continue on this path.
But politics is a brutal space. It becomes unmerciful when you seize the horns of power. The moment you touch it, every action is going to attract scrutiny. How else is it supposed to be? If you are not ready to swim in the spotlight. If you are not ready to fix past mistakes. If you are not ready to change the direction when the old ceased to work years ago then you better not touch the horns.
With respect to Russia, the German Chancellor is on a bridge to all over the place. Stefanie Babst, former NATO deputy assistant secretary general explains why:
Scholz does not want to be the one to let Ukraine fall, but neither does he want to be the one to bring Russia to its knees. In short, there is no clear positioning with regard to Moscow. And, more importantly, he does not offer an answer to the most important question: How can Russia, which is aggressive and relies on nuclear blackmail, be permanently put in its place and how can Ukraine be freed from this nightmare?
A dictatorial peace that leaves parts of Ukraine in Moscow’s hands must not be allowed to happen, says the chancellor. But how will he prevent that?
Would Scholz’s office be reluctant to see the Putin regime suffer an all-too-clear military defeat? The common argument is that such a scenario could result in dangerous domestic political turmoil that, in the worst case, would lead to an uncontrollable disintegration of Russia. Arguably, it would therefore be better to wait for a suitable window of opportunity for negotiations. Perhaps after Putin has reelected himself as Russian president on March 17, 2024? Next spring, the thinking goes, a Ukraine exhausted by two years of war might also be more willing to sit down at the negotiating table. Talks have to start sometime, don’t they?
No rationale justifies the challenges the German administrative coalition has imposed upon itself. Why allocate 27 billion dollars only to permit Russia to extend the war indefinitely, when a mere $100 million could abruptly halt the Russian invasion?
Yes.
That is the precise cost required to grant Ukraine a decisive victory. It is the exact investment needed to completely alter the current battlefield dynamics and compel the Russian army to withdraw from Crimea. There will be no need for Zeitenwende and one hundred billion euros.
Send 100 Taurus missiles to Ukraine. It costs $1.2 million per unit. The Taurus missiles are one of the most sophisticated long range missiles in the world, known for their ability to sink bridges. F16s loaded up with Taurus missiles will turn the table on the Russians. Their operations in Crimea will come to an end. The Russian army can be driven back to their barracks.
But the Scholz administration will not take the one step that can solve most of their problems.
Because — they fear the unknown.
But the problem is — everyone knows their fear.
Yesterday, in the German Parliament..
Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s approval rating has plummeted to a new low, with recent polls showing that only 20% of Germans approve of his job performance.
Yesterday, the opposition party took a sword and plunged into the Chancellor’s standing. They asked for a vote on delivering the Taurus missiles to Ukraine.
After hearing all the public messaging the German politicians give about supporting Ukraine and the pointed questions some of them have asked about the Chancellor’s refusal to give the missiles, one would assume that the bill would have passed the Bundestag(German Parliament). There were plenty of reports that said the supply was stopped by one man.
Not true.
Yesterday, the bill to supply Taurus missiles to Ukraine was defeated in the Bundestag.
No, to delivery: 485
Yes, to delivery: 178
The vote was setup by the opposition to fail:
German lawmakers on Wednesday voted against a proposal from the center-right opposition Christian Democrats that included language on delivering Taurus long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine.
Speaking to public broadcaster ARD ahead of the vote, Defense Committee Chair Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann criticized the Christian Democrats for using what she called a “partisan tactic” of tying the non-binding Taurus proposal to a debate on the state of the Bundeswehr and, in effect, setting up a no vote.
Regardless of this evening’s vote, a final decision on Taurus deliveries to Ukraine will rest with the chair of Germany’s Federal Security Council, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Everyone is playing politics. But the casualty will always be the German Chancellor. He is the leader of the coalition. He is the leader of the current administration. So, everything he does or doesn't is going to be attributed. If he expected anything else, then he will continue to suffer.
Despite knowing that the vote was likely to fail, Chancellor Olaf Scholz attempted to mitigate the damage by announcing additional military aid to Ukraine.
President Biden and I agree: We want to continue to support Ukraine financially, humanitarian and military. I spoke to @Potus on the phone today about this. Germany will provide military goods in 2024 with more than seven billion euros.
That “today” he mentioned was the same day the Taurus bill was tabled in the Bundestag. I can see what he is trying to do. The coalition partners can see what he is doing. The opposition can see what he is doing. Germans can see what he is doing. He is not in a position to face an aggressive Russia that is threatening to dismantle Europe. He is not in a great position to rescue the German economy.
Germany finds itself in a position that demands a significant shift in direction — from the inside out.
Time to go Bold Chancellor
Things weren’t really bad for the Chancellor when he started. When he announced that Germany will spend €100 billion to modernize the military, many thought this would be the moment when Germany steps up to the geo-political challenge faced by an increasingly turbulent world. After years of grinding, there was widespread anticipation that Germany would undergo transformation both internally and externally. His approval numbers went up after he made that bold announcement.
Germans welcomed change.
However, in the months following the announcement, the German public saw little tangible progress. Germany’s strategic stance against an assertive Russia remains uncertain, lacking coherence. There have been few observable initiatives from the Scholz administration to revitalize the German economy, constrained as it is by self-imposed restrictions.
In 2009, following the financial crisis, the German government wrote a debt limit into its constitution. New debt will only be 0.35% of nominal gross domestic product per year.
But geopolitical crises and new industrial rivalries in China and the United States have weakened demand for German-made products abroad. Germany grew rich in recent decades by selling its goods to the world, racking up a trade surplus that strained ties with the United States under President Donald J. Trump.
The restrictions on borrowing are preventing the government from making badly needed investments in public infrastructure, from schools and public administration to railways and energy networks
“Writing that into the Constitution gave it the binding effect that was intended at the time,” when debt soared after reunification with East Germany and spending rose after the financial crisis in 2008, Monika Schnitzer, a government adviser, told the podcast “Hessischer Rundfunk.” “But nobody thought it through to the end about what it could mean in a serious crisis, that there is not enough room to maneuver.”
There is widespread support to suspend the debt brake, or even reform it to address the current situation.
The world has evolved since 2008, especially on the taxation front, where many nations have significantly lowered taxes, creating a challenging environment to attract new businesses. However, Germany maintains relatively high taxes, and its self-imposed restrictions on taking on debt hinder the country from enhancing investments and spending.
Take this for example: “Germany spends just 1.5 percent of its GDP on infrastructure development, considerably less than the US and most other European nations. To put this spending into context, according to data released by the European Commission, depreciation of public infrastructure in Germany has been outstripping investment for over a decade”.
There is no doubt that this has to change. If this continues…. Germany will not be in the same place as it was ten years ago.
A lot of things need to change.
Excessiveness can be detrimental, yet inadequacy may pose its own risks; the key lies in context. Germany currently confronts a circumstance demanding robust economic strategies and a proactive foreign policy. Regrettably, the Scholz administration has, on both fronts, failed to meet the expected standards
