Scholz says top priority is avoiding NATO confrontation with Russia, when asked about Germany’s failure to deliver heavy weapons

28 comments

  1. No matter how often this gets reposted, this article is still heavily misrepresenting the Spiegel-Interview that he gave. Germany is among the top supporters of Ukraine, also with respect to military support. A couple of recent announcements where

    * >1 Billion Euros for Ukrainian weapon purchases
    * Germany sends Marder and Fuchs to Slovenia so that they can send T72 to Ukraine
    * Germany provides ammunition and training for the Panzerhaubitze 2000 which will be delivered by the Netherlands

  2. Good job Germany in taking a measured approach from the beginning whilst everyone else is only talking about transfering the taxpayers money to the weapons industry once again instead of pushing for peace. There is no incentive for peace when the weapons industry is allowed to profit in times of war. ☮️

  3. I am speechless…Germany really is pissing its pants because of Russia.

    Scholz, in case Putin decides to attack NATO (which is a system of collettive security, meaning its members agree to mutualità defense in case on an external threat such as Russia) first because of one of his crazy paranoia attacks, what is Germany going to do? Bend over and surrender?

  4. Here’s the part of the interview where heavy weapon deliveries get addressed (copied from another comment). You can convince yourself whether OPs headline is representing his answers well.

    > *SPIEGEL: Others are supplying heavy war equipment, while Germany pulls out its checkbook. Is that the distribution of roles in this war?*
    >
    > Scholz: Wrong! In close coordination with the U.S., France, Italy, Great Britain and Canada, we have supplied weapons for the upcoming battles in eastern Ukraine. Troop carriers and artillery can be deployed quickly. Therefore, we are ready to help our allies with rapid training on these devices and see if suitable equipment can still be procured on our part. The military equipment must be able to be deployed without lengthy training, without further logistics, without soldiers from our countries. This can be done most quickly with weapons from former Soviet stocks, with which the Ukrainians are well acquainted. Therefore, it is no coincidence that several Eastern European NATO partners are now supplying such weapons, and so far no ally has supplied Western battle tanks. We can gradually fill the gaps created by these deliveries from our partners with replacements from Germany, as we have just discussed in the case of Slovenia. In the medium term, we will help Ukraine expand its defense capabilities, including with Western weapons.
    >
    > *SPIEGEL: So when Ukrainian Ambassador Andrij Melnyk calls for German Marder tanks, he hasn’t understood that his army can’t operate them?*
    >
    > Scholz: Once again, we are now helping the Ukrainian government to procure armaments that meet the agreed framework of our allies. And we’re doing that as quickly as possible to stop Russia’s massive offensive in the east. When I look around the world, I see that all partners are moving within the framework of our agreements, as we are.
    >
    > *SPIEGEL: Canada, the U.S., the Netherlands want to deliver heavy equipment to Ukraine very quickly. Why are we falling behind?*
    >
    > Scholz: You can only deliver what you have and can give away. You have to take a close look at how operational which material really is – and when. If I deliver a vehicle that can be shot through by any machine gun, that’s of little help to the Ukrainian troops.
    >
    > *SPIEGEL: Kiev proposes that Germany continuously supply its operational equipment from the Bundeswehr and then gradually replace it. What speaks against this?*
    >
    > Scholz: The need to be able to defend the alliance territory at all times. This is a difficult balancing act that we must constantly make together with our partners. After all, the threat to NATO territory from Russia persists. We are hearing this from our Baltic partners in particular, who are therefore asking us for an increased Bundeswehr presence. That’s why we are heavily involved with units in Slovakia and Lithuania, among other places. NATO has set a target that we must be able to withstand a conventional attack for twelve days with our ammunition and equipment. Particularly in the current threat situation, I will do my utmost not to forget this commitment.
    >
    > > SPIEGEL: The U.S. government says it took only 48 hours from Joe Biden’s signature to the delivery of weapons to Ukraine. With us, it takes more like 48 days.
    >
    > Scholz: That’s what I read, too. With deliveries from our stocks, it also went quickly. The U.S. military has much larger stocks. The cost-cutting policy pursued by the Bundeswehr in recent decades has left its mark. We are changing that now.
    >
    > *SPIEGEL: You have dismissed your critics who call for the delivery of heavy weapons as “boys and girls” who have Googled together their knowledge. Why this arrogance?*
    >
    > Scholz: You can see how tense the situation is when a remark in a radio interview is immediately taken as an insult. Of course, when it comes to an issue as controversial as arms deliveries, there are many people who have a different opinion from mine, and who say so publicly. That’s part and parcel of a good democracy.
    >
    > *SPIEGEL: In your arguments against the delivery of heavy weapons, you constantly hit snags: sometimes the Ukrainians aren’t trained well enough, sometimes the weapons aren’t ready for launch, sometimes we can’t deliver anything ourselves. Don’t you realize how confusing these changing messages are?*
    >
    > Scholz: For Germany, it was a profound change of course when I announced that we would supply weapons to this war zone. I want to make that clear. Many who previously categorically rejected this step are now outbidding each other with demands to supply much more – without knowing the exact facts of the matter. I take note of that. But in this situation, we need a cool head and well-considered decisions, because our country bears responsibility for peace and security throughout Europe. I don’t think it’s justified for Germany and NATO to become warring parties in Ukraine.
    >
    > *SPIEGEL: That’s not what Kiev is asking at all; they’re desperately asking for weapons. What are you afraid of?*
    >
    > Scholz: Once again, we are supplying weapons, and many of our allies are doing the same. It’s not about fear, but about political responsibility. Introducing a no-fly zone, as has been demanded, would have made NATO a party to the war. I took an oath of office. I said very early on that we must do everything possible to avoid a direct military confrontation between NATO and a highly armed superpower like Russia, a nuclear power. I am doing everything I can to prevent an escalation that would lead to a third world war. There must be no nuclear war.
    >
    > *SPIEGEL: What makes you think that tank deliveries from Germany would have these terrible consequences?*
    >
    > Scholz: There is no textbook for this situation in which you could read about the point at which we are perceived as a war party. The book is being rewritten every day, and some lessons still lie ahead of us. This makes it all the more important that we carefully consider and closely coordinate our every move. Avoiding an escalation toward NATO is my top priority. That’s why I’m not squinting at poll numbers or letting myself be irritated by shrill calls. The consequences of a mistake would be dramatic.
    >
    > Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

  5. I still think its all about the gas. Which is a reasonable concern; If Russia stopped supplying Europe it would crash the world economy, not just ours. So either he’s being as timid as he publicly appears to be, or he’s doing shit in secret (like buying old Soviet equipment on the international market) and decided to take the flak until the war is over.

  6. From the comments I read on this (and similar other posts to this topic), it seems that many Reddit couch experts (TM) crave for an all out war with Russia (and if possible China as well) to make sure the west “wins”.

    Perhaps I am just way to pessimistic, but is it possible, that there would be no winners in that “all in” war? So why is everyone so eager to get it?

  7. I guess what’s most disappointing is geographically and politically I think the burden should almost be the most on Germany. In an ideal Europe would Ukraine have to be relying on America to survive?

    How can it be acceptable that the US isn’t just the biggest contributor to Ukraine’s defence… it’s the biggest by a country mile, by an embarrassing amount.

    Seems completely ridiculous to me. There’s some really dodgy thinking going on somewhere where a European country gets invaded and the jobs from losing an energy supply are more important than the country that’s being invaded.

  9. So hundred Polish T-72Ms magically didnt trigger nuclear war but 50 oldass Leo 1s would? This is just pathetic. One pathetic excuse after another. Like we all know what the real reason is, this is tiresome.

  12. Just pathetic from Scholz, bullshit excuse after bullshit excuse. I wonder how long he would allow Russia to move West before he bothered to help.

    Germany is a massive part of why Eastern Europe looks to the likes of the US instead of Western Europe.

  13. That makes zero sense when the most powerful NATO constituent is sending howitzers and suicide drones.

  16. Interesting part of that [interview ](https://www.spiegel.de/politik/olaf-scholz-und-der-ukraine-krieg-interview-es-darf-keinen-atomkrieg-geben-a-ae2acfbf-8125-4bf5-a273-fbcd0bd8791c?sara_ecid=soci_upd_wbMbjhOSvViISjc8RPU89NcCvtlFcJ):

    SPIEGEL: The Ukrainians sent a list of weapons they urgently need weeks ago. What is the argument against working through this list as quickly as possible?

    Scholz: The Bundeswehr’s options for supplying further weapons from its arsenal are largely exhausted. What can still be made available, however, we will definitely still supply – anti-tank weapons, anti-tank mines and artillery ammunition. That is why we have drawn up a list of military equipment that can be delivered quickly in consultation with German industry and discussed it with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence. So, as before, defensive weapons and mortars for artillery engagements. We are paying for these weapons deliveries. In total, Germany is providing two billion euros, a large part of which will directly benefit Ukraine.

    SPIEGEL: Others supply heavy war equipment, Germany pulls out the chequebook. Is that the distribution of roles in this war?

    Scholz: Wrong! In close coordination with the USA, France, Italy, Great Britain and Canada, we have supplied weapons for the upcoming battles in eastern Ukraine. Troop carriers and artillery can be deployed quickly. Therefore, we are ready to help our allies with rapid training on these devices and see if suitable equipment can still be procured on our part. The military equipment must be able to be used without lengthy training, without further logistics, without soldiers from our countries. The quickest way to do this is with weapons from former Soviet stocks, with which the Ukrainians are well acquainted. That is why it is no coincidence that several Eastern European NATO partners are now supplying such weapons and that so far no alliance partner has supplied Western battle tanks. We can gradually fill the gaps created by these deliveries from our partners with replacements from Germany, as we have just discussed in the case of Slovenia. In the medium term, we will help Ukraine to expand its defence capabilities, also with Western weapons.

    ….

  19. Scholz is getting rightly critzed about his handling of heavy weapons deliveries, but we should also note that **MOST Nato countries have refrained so far from sending heavy weapons.**

    I mean even the US just started like last week with announcing howitzers. And even staunchly pro Ukrainian countries like Poland hesitate to send MIGs directly to Ukraine, for example.

    I think Scholz is wrong, but he is hardly the only one.

  22. >Scholz says top priority is avoiding NATO confrontation with Russia

    r/europe didn’t like that.

  24. Wish the German government at least would be honest with the world. I think everybody would respect them more if they just laid the harsh truths. Instead of beating around the bush since day 0 of the war.

    How can we ( Poland ) build our security in this region seeing what the German government is doing at the moment? If Russia goes after us, Germany would have to be what Poland is to Ukraine now. And more. Would they?

  25. This is stall Tactic and excuse not to help Ukraine. Germany Does not like Ukraine and never did. They are all now sender heavy military weapons from helicopters to Tanks and armored vehicles but not Germany. Soon I hope they realize what Germany is doing and get rid of them. Send them to Russia where they want to be. Go place place for any Pro-Russian Spy.

  26. A Russian confrontation with NATO is **inevitable** at this point. Putin wants as much distance between the West and Moscow as he can get, regardless of how many of his people have to die. If Ukraine falls, Poland and the Baltics **will** follow. Not “may”. “Will”.

  28. I stop believe NATO. Germans definitely are pussys!! Can’t trust them… Will sell any country if ruZZia attack. US is only hope for peace in EU. They should never let nazis have they country back. ruZZians and germans never gona change. Both believe they are some special race!!! For me germans was and never stopped be nazis!!! Same mentality as they’re nazi grandparents!! I can guarantee germans was hoping Ukraine lose fast so they can keep ns2!!!

Leave a Reply