“Russia must not win, Ukraine must survive,” says Olaf Scholz. No further questions, except: What does that mean? Once again, the Chancellor is fueling a debate that he is actually trying to brush off.
Olaf Scholz is obviously not someone who unnecessarily verbally spreads or clearly defines. A review:
Scholz avoids banging pegs into the ground to gain room for manoeuvre. Some call it deliberative, others hesitant. Scholz says: “I always made decisions quickly.” His course is “that we act prudently and with a clear mind”, that decisions are not made from a PR point of view, but that each one has to be “carefully weighed” with a view to possible consequences.
In this respect, one can assume that the Chancellor has also carefully weighed his words on the political goals of the Federal Government, which are associated with its commitment in Ukraine: “Russia must not win, Ukraine must prevail,” he said in a government statement on Thursday. No further questions, except: What does that mean?
“I’m afraid the Chancellor doesn’t want Ukraine to win this war”
For Scholz, that he is stuck in the next debate about his hesitant attitude and communication, his formulation again offers all sorts of room for speculation – while other alliance partners name their goals more specifically:
The opposition recently raised serious allegations against the chancellor’s course. When it comes to the delivery of heavy weapons, Scholz is playing for time, CDU foreign politician Roderich Kiesewetter complained on Sunday. After all, the Marder infantry fighting vehicle and the Leopard main battle tank could have been made available to Ukraine long ago. “I’m afraid that the Chancellor doesn’t want Ukraine to win this war,” Kiesewetter accused the Chancellor. “Wins in the sense that the Russian troops are driven out of the country.”
What is certain is that Scholz’s formulation that Russia “must not win” and Ukraine must “exist” does not give rise to a clear idea for a post-war order. This is obviously intentional: “Germany has not formulated any concrete war goals,” quoted deputy government spokeswoman Christiane Hoffmann as saying in “Tagesschau.de”. “Except on the condition that there will be no dictated peace. The specific war goals are a matter for Ukraine.”
What follows?
However, this lack of clarity raises questions – which could take revenge the longer the war lasts, says Markus Kaim. “Without this clear determination or prioritization, military engagement threatens to lack measure and direction,” writes the expert on security policy in a guest article for “Spiegel”. That would “erode public political approval in the long term.” Although no one will seriously argue against Scholz’s goal, it will only remain a “minimum goal,” says Kaim. “Because what does that mean exactly, and what political and military steps arise from it?”
In view of Scholz’s rather cautious rather than brash formulation, there is plenty of room for speculation, possibly with the intention of avoiding further escalation with Russia. “We have to worry that the war will escalate,” said the Chancellor on “RTL Direkt” last week. Instead, you have to be able to “make sensible, very conscious and also courageous decisions.” Putin must not win the war, that is the goal. But the goals would not go beyond that, “given the fact that it is a nuclear power, that would be a completely wrong goal,” said Scholz.
Scholz did well for a long time with his communication style of saying only what was absolutely necessary and remaining general, ultimately to the top of the government. However, the strategy seems to be increasingly reaching its limits. First the corona crisis, then the Ukraine war, aroused a desire for clarity that apparently calls for more: According to a survey by RTL, two-thirds of the population attest that he does not adequately explain his politics.
Scholz did a lot to dispel this impression: a surprise appearance at “Joko
But the chancellor is apparently unable to shake off his often rhetorical reserve – which the opposition knows how to exploit. “I also thought it was right that he pointed out the possible dangers of a nuclear war in an interview,” said CSU party leader Markus Söder in an interview with the star. “But then? Then he disappeared from the scene again for three weeks and left the Germans alone with this concern. And when he finally spoke, nobody understood what he actually wanted to say.”
Sources: “n-tv.de”, “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, “Bild”, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, Bayerischer Rundfunk, “Tagesschau.de”, “Der Spiegel”, “RTL Direkt”, “Der Tagesspiegel”, ” Anne Will”, “Maischberger”, CNN
