Enlarge image
A dilemma that is difficult to resolve:
Chancellor Scholz during his statement on the Ukraine war on Tuesday
Photo: CLEMENS BILAN / POOL / EPA
What a disappointment!
The Chancellery announced on Tuesday that Olaf Scholz would be making a "substantial" statement after a conference call with other leaders that evening.
Had he finally gotten around to ending his dithering?
For weeks, there have been accusations that the chancellor is getting in the way of heavy weapons deliveries to Ukraine.
For weeks, even members of Scholz's own coalition government have been waiting for a firm message from their leader.
And then this.
Scholz said he supports Ukraine receiving heavy weapons such as tanks and artillery pieces from NATO countries.
But there will be no direct deliveries for the time being.
"Unilateral German action would be wrong."
After all, he said, the country's allies would act in exactly the same way.
Who might he be referring to?
The Americans, who even sent helicopters to Ukraine within days?
The Dutch, British, Czechs or Slovaks, who all want to help out with heavy equipment?
According to a recent survey, many Germans now doubt their chancellor's abilities.
Just under two-thirds don't consider him to be a strong leader.
Is Olaf Scholz, who likes to attest to his own leadership, ultimately the wrong chancellor for these challenging times?
Scholz
's
dilemma
What is certain is this: He's stuck in a dilemma that is difficult to resolve.
His goal is to avert harm to the German people, and he has taken an oath of office to that end.
Germany must not be dragged into the war under any circumstances, because Putin is capable of anything.
Yet this is precisely the crux of the matter, and Scholz probably doesn't want to talk about it publicly because it could be interpreted as a betrayal of Ukraine: What if Putin doesn't get anywhere in the Donbas either?
What if the arms supplies from the West actually enable Zelenskyy's troops to withstand the Russians' superior force?
For Putin, that would be tantamount to disgrace.
In Scholz's Chancellery, officials now assume that the Kremlin boss could then use nuclear weapons as a last resort.
But what if those bombs fall not on Ukrainian soil but instead on Warsaw or Berlin?
That Putin isn't solely concerned with Ukraine, but with a reordering of the balance of power in Europe - they have understood that much in the chancellery.
This means, conversely, that they are no longer ruling out any possibility any longer.
The problem is that Scholz is simply failing to explain this dilemma.
Former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi drove a stake into the euro crisis and quieted the markets with his "whatever it takes" speech, Angela Merkel assured everyday Germans that "their savings are safe" in the middle of the financial crisis.
Scholz, on the other hand, tries to talk his way out of it but keeps getting lost in the minutiae.
He explained that the delivery of German tanks was out of the question because Ukrainians would first have to be trained on them.
That may be true, but it also could have been done long ago, as the Americans did.
He also said that the German armed forces then wouldn't have enough functional tanks to fulfill their own defense obligations.
That is also true, but it has also never had enough, and its swap deal with Slovenia to get heavy weapons to Ukraine won't solve the problem, either.
Third, he said there was a risk of provoking Putin and being framed as a party to the war by his propaganda apparatus.
That may also be true, but Putin hasn't needed German tanks for his propaganda so far.
Existential Questions Demand Answers
What this leaves in the end is a bad impression, with alliance partners and the German people alike feeling that Scholz has a clear goal, but no plan for how he wants to achieve it.
Especially considering that his arguments can also be flipped.
The Baltic States, for example, have a lot more reason to be afraid of Putin's revenge, and yet they are delivering what they can.
The nuclear option would not be eliminated with a conquest of the Donbas;
Putin can continue to play that card.
And if he is really concerned with a restoration of the old Soviet power, then NATO and the EU should be doing everything they can to ensure that his army wears out quickly.
Then it will take years for Putin to replenish his armories.
The wear and tear is already enormous,
and not much of Russia's economic and financial strength will be left as a result of the sanctions.
That is exactly what the Americans are counting on.
These are all reasons why we should not allow ourselves to be intimidated by Putin's aggression.
Olaf Scholz is regarded as a man who always keeps his cool and doesn't allow himself to be carried away by rash actions.
That's a good thing, and it's also why he got elected.
On the other hand, the fact that he doesn't explain himself and instead hides behind other leaders like Joe Biden isn't worthy of a chancellor.
The debate over Scholz's leadership will not die down after performances like the one he gave on Tuesday.
It is said that the chancellor impressed upon his inner circle that it isn't necessary to provide an answer to every question.
That may be.
But not answering potentially existential questions borders on a refusal to do his job in a democracy.