First it was French President Emmanuel Macron, who angered his NATO allies by suggesting the West could soon be forced to send troops to Ukraine, foreshadowing a direct confrontation with Russian forces that the rest of the alliance has long rejected.
Then Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany took his turn revealing new divisions. Trying to justify why Germany kept its most powerful missile, the Taurus, out of Ukrainian hands, he hinted that Britain, France and the United States might secretly help Ukraine target similar weapons, a move he said the Germany just couldn’t do it. While neither Britain nor France have commented officially – they almost never discuss how their weapons are developed – Mr Scholz was immediately accused by former officials of revealing war secrets.
“Soltz’s behavior has shown that, as far as European security is concerned, he is the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time,” Ben Wallace, Britain’s former defense secretary, told The Evening Standard, a London newspaper. Tobias Ellwood, a Conservative who once chaired a key defense committee in the House of Commons, was widely quoted in the British press as calling the statement a “gross misuse of information”.
In a week when President Vladimir Putin threatened nuclear escalation if NATO troops entered the conflict, tensions between the Western allies underscored the ways they are struggling to maintain unity at a time of apparent stalemate in the war and flag support , especially in Washington.
For NATO the challenge now is to find some combination of new weapons and financial support without provoking a direct confrontation with Mr. Putin, never knowing exactly where that line lies. It is a particularly difficult dance for Mr. Scholz.
Germany has provided more weapons and promised more aid to Ukraine than any nation barring the United States — but Mr. Scholz has drawn the line at Taurus, whose powers, he fears, could challenge Mr. Putin in particular.
Mr Scholz’s troubles deepened at the weekend when a 38-minute intercepted telephone conversation between the German air chief and other officers was released by Russian state media, making it clear that contingency plans were in place if Mr Scholz changed his mind and decided to send the Taurus System after all. The leak was widely interpreted in Berlin as a Russian operation intended to inflame opposition to more aid to Ukraine.
It sparked inquiries in Berlin because top officers were talking on the line, giving the Russians an easy way to embarrass the German leader in front of NATO allies and in front of his own public at a time when the Germans are still reluctant to get involved more. at the war.
The German military confirmed the audio was authentic, but did not comment on its content, including a discussion of the need for German involvement in the operation of the system if it is delivered to Ukraine.
At most, Germany appears to have about 100 Taurus missiles available, which have a longer range than the military’s tactical missile system provided by the United States, Britain’s Storm Shadow missiles or France’s SCALP missiles.
The European Parliament named the Taurus system among several needed by Ukraine in a non-binding resolution calling on all member states to provide more of the weapon. But it is not clear that even if Germany provided Taurus missiles to Ukraine, as President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged, it would have made a decisive difference in the conflict.
Germany’s decision to send Leopard tanks last year prevented Ukraine from mounting a successful counterattack, and there are doubts whether the F-16 fighters, due to be delivered to Kiev, will turn the tide now.
What Ukraine needs most, US officials say, are old-fashioned artillery shells to repel Russian ground advances and air defenses against missile and drone attacks.
The reason for not giving Ukraine the Bull is simple, Mr Scholz told voters at a town hall event in Dresden on Thursday. While Germany will supply $30 billion worth of weapons to Kiev over the next few years, the Taurus can strike at a range of 500 kilometers, or 310 miles.
That would put Moscow at risk and make it clear that it does not trust that Ukrainian forces could refrain from bringing the war back to the Kremlin. Nor could Germany be seen as directly targeting Russia without itself risking direct confrontation with Moscow.
Mr. Scholz noted that Germany had given and pledged more weapons than almost any other country in the world, giving it “the right to often say yes, but also — sometimes — ‘no this time.’
But what got him into the most trouble was his description of how advanced missile systems could not simply be delivered to Ukraine. suggested that NATO forces were needed to target the sophisticated weaponry.
“What is being done on the British and French side in terms of target control and accompanying target control cannot be done in Germany,” he said, saying only that the NATO allies had direct control over the weapons systems they had provided. “What other countries do, which have other traditions and other constitutional institutions, is something we cannot do in the same way.”
He said that it is one thing to give weapons to Ukraine and another for Germany to aim them at targets. “We must not be associated at any point or in any place with military objectives.”
But then came the leaked tapes, which included General Ingo Gerharts, the country’s highest-ranking air force officer. General Gerhardt’s intercepted conversation caught him and other officers preparing for a classified briefing they were scheduled to give.
It detailed how German soldiers would be needed for targeting, especially against difficult targets such as the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea with Ukraine.
Officers discussed how Germany could only send a maximum of 100 missiles, meaning every shot would have to count.
They also discussed how to help plan Taurus in ways that would avoid linking Germany to the targeting and without being forced to put German troops in Ukraine. One option, they suggested, was to work quietly through the weapon’s manufacturer or by transporting the target data to Ukraine overland.
“In the worst case, I might have to travel back and forth by car,” said one officer.
On Sunday, Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the powerful parliamentary intelligence committee, said an unauthorized eavesdropper had apparently joined the conversation and gone unnoticed by officers.
On Sunday afternoon, Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense minister, referred to the leak as a Russian “hybrid disinformation attack” and called for an equal response. “This is about undermining our unity,” he told reporters.
At the town hall meeting, Germans who asked questions of the chancellor made it clear that they would prefer their government to spend more at home and less in Ukraine.
The session began with a man asking the chancellor why she chose “sword over soul,” by which she meant providing military aid to Ukraine over negotiations with Russia.
When, in his response, Mr. Scholz said that no German or NATO troops would be deployed in Ukraine, he received applause.
The issue of military support has become hotter than ever, especially in the former East Germany – including Dresden – where many tell pollsters they oppose taking a stand against Russia. While members of Mr Scholz’s shaky tripartite coalition and the conservative opposition in Berlin have pushed the chancellor to hand over increasingly sophisticated weapons, ordinary voters are not so sure.
In Dresden, Mr Scholz heard complaints about the one million Ukrainians who came to Germany to escape the war, although the government says many have returned. Other critics of his policy, in an argument that parallels the position taken by many Republicans in Congress, say the money should be spent on domestic needs.
“If we’re going to fund arms for Ukraine,” Daniel Asher said, “we should also invest money in our emergency services, because if it gets worse” with Russia, “we’re going to need it.”
