German Chancellor Olaf Scholz Deserves a Standing Ovation
He needs to ask for it
At the current pace, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is gradually winning me over.
A Scholzie in the making!
Still not fully there yet, but there is potential.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, I closely followed the words of four key leaders: U.S. President Joe Biden, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and French President Emmanuel Macron. They formed the power center then, and their influence remains evident in the ongoing situation in Ukraine
While the stance of the French President remains somewhat enigmatic in the fight against tyranny, the burden of leadership primarily falls on the other three nations. Among them, the German Chancellor stands out for his evolving approach in the right direction. (Britain’s position is already solidified, leaving little room for further evolution.)
Germany, under Chancellor Scholz, initially had limited involvement in aiding Ukraine and countering Putin’s actions in 2022. While they participated in the broader Western efforts, primarily coordinated by the White House, their significant achievement during the first year of the conflict was their concerted effort to reduce dependency on Russian oil and gas by diversifying their energy sources.
The first indication of change emerged towards the end of 2022 with the appointment of Boris Pistorious as the defense minister. Within a month, Germany authorized the delivery of Leopard tanks and Patriot air-defense systems to Ukraine. However, Poland and Great Britain exerted significant pressure within the coalition to persuade Germany to agree on sending heavier weaponry. With Boris Pistorius also involved in the decision-making process, attributing credit solely to the chancellor became challenging.
Then, in February 2023, Germany doubled its aid to Ukraine, pledging as much in one month as they had in the previous 11 combined. This marked a significant and rapid increase in support. However, it remained unclear who was leading these efforts.
My first, “Should I sit back?” moment occurred during the Munich Security Conference in February 2023, When the Chancellor said,
“Germany is committed to living up to its responsibility for Europe’s security and that of NATO Allied territory — without any ifs or buts.” He then added, “the sooner President Putin realizes that he cannot achieve his imperialist objective, the greater the chance that the war will end soon with a withdrawal of Russia’s occupying forces”.
It was the first instance I heard him describe Putin as “imperialist” on a global platform. Since then, he has consistently used this term to condemn the Russian President and strengthen Ukraine’s position.
Throughout 2023, Germany rapidly provided military, economic, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine. The pace of support was so swift that Germany surpassed Britain to become the second-largest donor for Ukraine in 2023, a position they have maintained ever since.
By the time winter arrived in 2023, the Scholz administration had fortified the nation’s energy grid against potential disruptions. Despite freezing temperatures across Europe, Germany managed the situation seamlessly, with minimal effort.
Scholz made commendable efforts both domestically and in support of Ukraine. However, he has been criticized for not supplying the one weapon that could potentially end the war: the Taurus missiles. Similarly, President Biden faces scrutiny for withholding long-range weapons in sufficient quantities. While the 20 ATACMS missiles provided by the United States enabled Ukraine to inflict significant damage on Russian airfields in Crimea, a larger supply could have dramatically altered the battlefield dynamics.
So, both Germany and the United States have refrained from providing Ukraine with long-range missiles. However, Chancellor Scholz demonstrates a clear comprehension of the long-term security implications posed by Russia to Europe.
Speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony for Rheinmetall’s new munitions factory, Scholz said European nations must pool together orders and financing to provide the defence industry with purchase guarantees for the next decades.
“This is urgently necessary because the painful reality is that we do not live in times of peace,” he said, pointing to Russia’s war on Ukraine.
“We must move from manufacturing to mass production of armaments,” he said, arguing that “those who want peace must be able to successfully deter aggressors”.
Rheinmetall’s production is poised to reach half a million shells this year, marking a significant surge from the previous output of only 70,000 shells before the war.
The two statements made by the chancellor, emphasizing mass production of armaments and the necessity of deterring aggression for achieving peace, demonstrate a clear understanding of the situation and outline a viable path toward achieving Europe’s objectives.
Germany is often perceived as slow-moving, a trait acknowledged even within the country. Bureaucracy and paperwork are inherent to Germany, yet there are instances where these characteristics can serve as strengths. For instance, in the case of immigration, German bureaucracy adeptly adapted to the requirements, resulting in a seamless process for absorbing Ukrainian refugees. It’s worth noting that Germany currently hosts more Ukrainian refugees than any other country worldwide.
A nice little vote of confidence from Ukrainians isn’t it?
Is it conceivable to transition from a 55% dependency on a single buyer to nearly zero in less than 12 months? Yes, indeed. The Scholz administration successfully accomplished this feat.
It was far from an easy process. Now that Germany has achieved energy security, the considerable effort invested in this remarkable feat seems to have been disregarded. Instead, we’ve fallen into the familiar pattern of swiftly moving on to the next issue or mistake. Sometimes, it’s crucial to pause and acknowledge our accomplishments with gratitude.
At the time of the Russian invasion, Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its natural gas imports, which flowed into German territory via pipelines. While Germans, German businesses, and policymakers were preoccupied with the potential catastrophic effects of an embargo on the economy, Russia began reducing the flow of gas. Gazprom intentionally depleted its terminals to low storage levels.
CEO of BASF, Martin Brudermüller, predicted that a cut-off from Russian gas “could bring the German economy into its worst crisis since the end of World War II and destroy our prosperity”, adding “Do we knowingly want to destroy our entire economy?”
BASF, valued at €87.3 billion, stands as the largest chemical manufacturer globally, boasting over 100,000 employees. The CEO’s remarks at the onset of the invasion epitomized the prevailing sentiment within Germany. Uncertainty loomed, and Russia’s exploitation of its leverage in gas supply intensified. Some think tanks even discussed the potential for a catastrophic contraction of the economy.
The pressure mounted. The Scholz administration, aided by fellow members of the European Union, embarked on a dual approach to address the situation. Germany diversified its energy sources by importing LNG from Norway and the United States, addressing the supply side. Simultaneously, the German government mobilized both the public and the industry to curtail consumption, tackling the demand side of the equation.
The German populace responded admirably by slashing consumption rates, achieving a remarkable reduction of 26% in the industrial sector and 17% in households. These figures are truly impressive.
During a podcast hosted by the Brookings Institute, Benjamin Moll, a German macroeconomist and Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, explained Germany’s unexpected approach to addressing a pressing issue:
What we saw was that in some sectors where they did use a lot of gas, there were originally very large drops in industrial production, say, in the chemicals industry or say in the glass sector. But these then didn’t have these knock on effects.
Instead, what you saw is that imports increased a lot of these gas intensive imports, gas intensive goods, for example, or that you switched to other energy sources to produce these goods. So to say you use oil to heat your blast furnace rather than gas.
According to the professor, Germany overcame the odds through “adaptation and substitution.”
The issue I observe with Chancellor Scholz mirrors a common challenge seen worldwide. Democratic administrations often struggle to effectively communicate their accomplishments. This is something the Germans should take pride in, particularly in how they tackled Putin’s attempts to weaponize gas exports.
Frankly, if Germans can tackle seemingly insurmountable challenges, then supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine and ending the war shouldn’t be an issue. Providing these missiles could swiftly bring an end to the conflict. Once Ukraine has access to Taurus missiles, they can target the Kerch bridge, disrupting Russia’s logistical operations in Crimea. With only two large transport ships in the Black Sea, Russia’s hold on the region would weaken. The loss of the Kerch bridge would significantly impact Russian control over Kherson Oblast. Although Russia may continue to fight, Ukraine armed with F16s equipped with Taurus missiles would tilt the balance of power in their favor.
The Scholz administration has the capability to accomplish tasks effectively. However, they seem to lack the confidence to assume a leadership role. Rectifying this issue lies solely in the hands of the Chancellor. No one else can.
Apart from the issue of Taurus missiles, there isn’t much to fault the Chancellor for. He deserves significant praise for his accomplishments. I genuinely hope he assumes a leading role in the crucial fight for democracy. I’m beginning to believe he has the capability to do so.
