FFS. ~~Can we please have Ms. Merkel back~~ The world needs someone with balls.
Edit: I was educated today
The pathetic Mr. Scholzin.
It’s a cheap excuse.
Russia told several times, before and during the war, what the conditions are for a nuclear strike. The only thing I believe because it is consistent and Russia would never do that just because someone send tanks.
I thought several times bis party is pro-russia. I doubt myself less and less.
No matter how much we may want, a weasel will never become a lion. Congrats Germany…Alles ordnung
Unbelievable fcking coward. Other German politics like that too? I know Berbock certanly not like that.
I mean, he also gave these reasons:
>**“In close coordination with the U.S., France, Italy, the U.K. and Canada, we have supplied weapons for the upcoming battles in eastern Ukraine,”** Scholz insisted to Spiegel when asked whether he saw Germany largely as a financier of the Ukrainian war effort while others should send weapons.
>**But he conceded that “the Bundeswehr’s options for supplying further weapons from its arsenal have largely been exhausted,”** arguing that German austerity in all things defense had left its mark on the armed forces.
>Echoing remarks by Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht, Scholz said that instead of Berlin directly supplying heavy weaponry, several Eastern European NATO partners would deliver weapons from Soviet-designed stocks that “can be deployed without lengthy training, without further logistics, and without soldiers from our countries.”
>**Germany would then “gradually fill the gaps created by these deliveries … as just discussed in the case of Slovenia,”** he said.
They wouldn’t be as suitable for rage bait headlines though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is why we need Macron, and not Le Pen.
Someone needs to slap Germany’s ass every now and then.
So USA sending sci-fi drones that even their own forces haven’t used in the field won’t trigger a nuclear war, but some old german tanks will? Getting real sick of german arrogance and exceptionalism about Ukraine.
> *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)
OMFG please resign already
As a German I have to say that I’m very disappointed in Olaf Scholz. The whole World is contributing military aid to the Ukraine but he is concerned about a nuclear war and is using this as an excuse not to send heavy weapons. This makes no sense at all.
What a pussy.
Copied from a different comment of me about a similarly bad Reuters article:
Politico here is really dishonest portraying Scholz’ statements out of context. In the interview, Scholz answers questions like a typical politician, leaving wriggle room. He never (explicitly) says that Germany does not deliver heavy weapons for fear of NATO confrontation with Russia.
Some context from the interview:
After already talking about this issue for a while, the interviewer asks why Scholz is afraid and he answers: “[…]. A no-fly zone […] would have made NATO an actor in this war. […] we have to do everything to avoid direct military confrontation. […] There cannot be nuclear war.”
The interviewer later asks: “If we provide tanks, there will be nuclear strikes – why don’t you state this clearly to the Germans?”
Scholz pretty much denies this assumption by stating: “These simplifications aren’t productive. I continue to say: We will […] coordinate with our closest partners and we won’t go solo.”
​
Politico makes it seem like Scholz immediate answer to the question of heavy weapons is that we should not do that to avoid confrontation.
Critizise Scholz, by all means. There is plenty of room for that, in this interview and otherwise. But do so on a factual basis and don’t take one-liners out of context.
​
Sidenote: Politico is not a reliable source, especially on German politics. They are part of the Springer group, a conservative media group known for misrepresenting facts and tabloid reporting.
I guess he can give East Germany to Putler if that is the case.
My suspicion is that this is not about nuclear war but some other bullshit that Putler can expose if he does not play ball.
I am starting to think that Putin got Olaf Scholz’s sex tape.
USA : send drones
France and Netherlands : send their best 155mm howitzer
UK : train ukrainians to use British tanks
Germany : but nuclear war ?
Coward. Or a Putin agent.
Scholz hopes Le Pen wins in France because if Macron is re-elected then the European command will pass to France
I have a better idea: we bomb the Kremlin to dust and every time Putin has a hissy fit, we 10x the bombings. Every time Lavrov opens his mouth, 20x. Every time they menace nuclear war, 100x. Until Moscow is reduced like Grozny in the 90s. Maybe this will make them shut the fuck up.
Cue lenghty mental gymanstics comments from apologysts.
Scholz always finds an excuse, whether equipment is desperately needed for Bundeswehr, or it is is too complex for Ukrainians to learn, or it is in too bad shape, or Russia will start a nuclear war. Obviously there may be some actual issues with some specific types of equipment, but Germany not managing to find even a single heavy weapon system they could send is clearly not about ability but about willingness.
Poland just sent 100 T-72s.
Scholz is so full of shit.
Stop being a little bitch, Olaf.
Let’s be clear. Germany’s industry badly requires Russian gas. If Putler cut the gas Germany is fucked so Scholz is just trying to protect the interests of the German industry and economy.
At least he could show some intellectual honesty and speak clearly to the German people about it.
Scholz is correct. America has not sent abrams. The UK has not sent challengers. Why would germany be the first to send tanks to Ukraine? That doesn’t make sense. Sending them to Eastern European countries who will send t-72s is another matter, and there is indication that Germany will do just that.
Good thing that in the event of a nuclear war between Russia and the USA, UK, Poland, France and the Netherlands the German people will be safe because their politicians didn’t send Ukraine tanks.
Somewhere I read they plan to cooperate with nations that have T72s in their military arsenal and are ready to replenish those countries stock(with leopards?) if they send them to Ukraine…
Once and for all it would be nice to read actual truth and a final statement.
Or is Germany just buying time and still thinking about doing business with putins russia after whole this mess?
The only thing that triggers nukes is a deranged man in Kremlin, whose behaviour is absolutely unpredictable. Is nuke war possible? Of course, why not. Does Germany play any role in provoking one? Hardly. Russia doesn’t distunguish between Germany, Italy, Poland etc, for them there is one big evil W.E.S.T. headed by the US and great mother Russia waging a war against it.
30 comments
FFS. ~~Can we please have Ms. Merkel back~~ The world needs someone with balls.
Edit: I was educated today
The pathetic Mr. Scholzin.
It’s a cheap excuse.
Russia told several times, before and during the war, what the conditions are for a nuclear strike. The only thing I believe because it is consistent and Russia would never do that just because someone send tanks.
I thought several times bis party is pro-russia. I doubt myself less and less.
No matter how much we may want, a weasel will never become a lion. Congrats Germany…Alles ordnung
Unbelievable fcking coward. Other German politics like that too? I know Berbock certanly not like that.
I mean, he also gave these reasons:
>**“In close coordination with the U.S., France, Italy, the U.K. and Canada, we have supplied weapons for the upcoming battles in eastern Ukraine,”** Scholz insisted to Spiegel when asked whether he saw Germany largely as a financier of the Ukrainian war effort while others should send weapons.
>**But he conceded that “the Bundeswehr’s options for supplying further weapons from its arsenal have largely been exhausted,”** arguing that German austerity in all things defense had left its mark on the armed forces.
>Echoing remarks by Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht, Scholz said that instead of Berlin directly supplying heavy weaponry, several Eastern European NATO partners would deliver weapons from Soviet-designed stocks that “can be deployed without lengthy training, without further logistics, and without soldiers from our countries.”
>**Germany would then “gradually fill the gaps created by these deliveries … as just discussed in the case of Slovenia,”** he said.
They wouldn’t be as suitable for rage bait headlines though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is why we need Macron, and not Le Pen.
Someone needs to slap Germany’s ass every now and then.
So USA sending sci-fi drones that even their own forces haven’t used in the field won’t trigger a nuclear war, but some old german tanks will? Getting real sick of german arrogance and exceptionalism about Ukraine.
> *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)
OMFG please resign already
As a German I have to say that I’m very disappointed in Olaf Scholz. The whole World is contributing military aid to the Ukraine but he is concerned about a nuclear war and is using this as an excuse not to send heavy weapons. This makes no sense at all.
What a pussy.
Copied from a different comment of me about a similarly bad Reuters article:
Politico here is really dishonest portraying Scholz’ statements out of context. In the interview, Scholz answers questions like a typical politician, leaving wriggle room. He never (explicitly) says that Germany does not deliver heavy weapons for fear of NATO confrontation with Russia.
Some context from the interview:
After already talking about this issue for a while, the interviewer asks why Scholz is afraid and he answers: “[…]. A no-fly zone […] would have made NATO an actor in this war. […] we have to do everything to avoid direct military confrontation. […] There cannot be nuclear war.”
The interviewer later asks: “If we provide tanks, there will be nuclear strikes – why don’t you state this clearly to the Germans?”
Scholz pretty much denies this assumption by stating: “These simplifications aren’t productive. I continue to say: We will […] coordinate with our closest partners and we won’t go solo.”
​
Politico makes it seem like Scholz immediate answer to the question of heavy weapons is that we should not do that to avoid confrontation.
Critizise Scholz, by all means. There is plenty of room for that, in this interview and otherwise. But do so on a factual basis and don’t take one-liners out of context.
​
Sidenote: Politico is not a reliable source, especially on German politics. They are part of the Springer group, a conservative media group known for misrepresenting facts and tabloid reporting.
I guess he can give East Germany to Putler if that is the case.
My suspicion is that this is not about nuclear war but some other bullshit that Putler can expose if he does not play ball.
I am starting to think that Putin got Olaf Scholz’s sex tape.
USA : send drones
France and Netherlands : send their best 155mm howitzer
UK : train ukrainians to use British tanks
Germany : but nuclear war ?
Coward. Or a Putin agent.
Scholz hopes Le Pen wins in France because if Macron is re-elected then the European command will pass to France
I have a better idea: we bomb the Kremlin to dust and every time Putin has a hissy fit, we 10x the bombings. Every time Lavrov opens his mouth, 20x. Every time they menace nuclear war, 100x. Until Moscow is reduced like Grozny in the 90s. Maybe this will make them shut the fuck up.
Russian thinking and strategy comes from this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
May explain why this is happening.
Cue lenghty mental gymanstics comments from apologysts.
Scholz always finds an excuse, whether equipment is desperately needed for Bundeswehr, or it is is too complex for Ukrainians to learn, or it is in too bad shape, or Russia will start a nuclear war. Obviously there may be some actual issues with some specific types of equipment, but Germany not managing to find even a single heavy weapon system they could send is clearly not about ability but about willingness.
Poland just sent 100 T-72s.
Scholz is so full of shit.
Stop being a little bitch, Olaf.
Let’s be clear. Germany’s industry badly requires Russian gas. If Putler cut the gas Germany is fucked so Scholz is just trying to protect the interests of the German industry and economy.
At least he could show some intellectual honesty and speak clearly to the German people about it.
Scholz is correct. America has not sent abrams. The UK has not sent challengers. Why would germany be the first to send tanks to Ukraine? That doesn’t make sense. Sending them to Eastern European countries who will send t-72s is another matter, and there is indication that Germany will do just that.
Good thing that in the event of a nuclear war between Russia and the USA, UK, Poland, France and the Netherlands the German people will be safe because their politicians didn’t send Ukraine tanks.
Somewhere I read they plan to cooperate with nations that have T72s in their military arsenal and are ready to replenish those countries stock(with leopards?) if they send them to Ukraine…
Once and for all it would be nice to read actual truth and a final statement.
Or is Germany just buying time and still thinking about doing business with putins russia after whole this mess?
The only thing that triggers nukes is a deranged man in Kremlin, whose behaviour is absolutely unpredictable. Is nuke war possible? Of course, why not. Does Germany play any role in provoking one? Hardly. Russia doesn’t distunguish between Germany, Italy, Poland etc, for them there is one big evil W.E.S.T. headed by the US and great mother Russia waging a war against it.
The Incredible Story of the Fall of the German Chancellor in r/Ukraine: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/u9hwil/comment/i5rinx7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/u9hwil/comment/i5rinx7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)