Now it is Germany’s turn to frustrate its allies over Ukraine

First, it was French President Emmanuel Macron who angered his NATO allies by suggesting that the West could soon be forced to send troops to Ukraine, predicting a direct confrontation with Russian forces that had already threatened the rest of the alliance. has long rejected.

Then Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany took his own turn to expose new divisions. In an attempt to justify why Germany withheld its most powerful missile, the Taurus, from Ukrainian hands, he hinted that Britain, France and the United States could secretly help Ukraine attack similar weapons, a move that Germany said simply couldn’t put it down. Although neither Britain nor France have made official comment — they almost never discuss how their weapons are deployed — Mr. Scholz was immediately accused by former officials of revealing war secrets.

“Scholz’s behavior has shown that, as far as Europe’s security is concerned, he is the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time,” Ben Wallace, the former British defense secretary, told The Evening Standard, a London daily. . Tobias Ellwood, a Conservative who once chaired a key defense committee in the House of Commons, was widely quoted in the British press calling the statement “a blatant misuse of intelligence.”

The tensions between the Western allies came in a week when President Vladimir V. Putin threatened a nuclear escalation if NATO troops entered the conflict. The tensions between Western allies underscored how they are struggling to maintain unity at a time of apparent stalemate in the war and declining support, especially in Washington.

For NATO, the challenge now is to find a combination of new weapons and financial support without leading to a direct confrontation with Mr Putin, while he never knows exactly where that line lies. It is a particularly difficult dance for Mr. Scholz.

Germany has supplied more weapons and promised more aid to Ukraine than any country apart from the United States – but Mr Scholz has drawn the line at Taurus, whose power, he fears, could provoke Mr Putin in particular.

Mr Scholz’s troubles deepened this weekend when an intercepted 38-minute telephone conversation between the German air force chief and other officers was published by Russian state media, revealing that contingency plans were in place if Mr Scholz changed his mind and would finally conclude the Taurus system. The leak was widely interpreted in Berlin as a Russian operation designed to incite the opposition to provide more aid to Ukraine.

It led to investigations in Berlin as the top officers spoke on an open 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 Germans are reluctant to to become more deeply involved. in the war.

The German military confirmed the audio was authentic but did not comment on its contents, including a discussion of the need for German involvement in running the system if it were to be handed over to Ukraine.

Germany appears to have at most about 100 Taurus missiles, which have a longer range than the Army Tactical Missile System supplied by the United States, the British Storm Shadow or the French SCALP missiles.

The European Parliament named the Taurus system as one of several that Ukraine needed in a non-binding resolution calling on all member states to supply more weapons. But it is far from clear that even if Germany were to deliver Taurus missiles to Ukraine, as President Volodymyr Zelensky has insisted, it would make a decisive difference in the conflict.

The German decision to send Leopard tanks last year has not allowed Ukraine to mount a successful counter-offensive, and there are doubts about whether F-16 fighters, which are about to be delivered to Kiev are delivered, the battle will now turn.

What Ukraine needs most, U.S. officials say, are old-fashioned artillery shells to fend off Russia’s gradual territorial advance, and air defenses against missile and drone attacks.

The reason for not giving Ukraine the Taurus is simple, Scholz told voters at a town hall event in Dresden on Thursday. While Germany will supply $30 billion in weapons to Kiev in the coming years, the Bull could strike from a distance of 500 kilometers or 310 miles.

That would endanger Moscow, and he made clear he did not trust that Ukrainian forces could stop themselves from taking the war to the Kremlin. Nor could it be said that Germany targeted Russia directly without risking a direct confrontation with Moscow itself.

Mr. Scholz noted that Germany has given and pledged more weapons than virtually any other country in the world, giving the country “the right to often say yes, but also — sometimes — ‘not this time.’”

But what got him in trouble the most was his description of how advanced missile systems could not simply be transferred to Ukraine; he suggested they needed NATO troops to target the complex weaponry.

“What is being done by the British and French in terms of target control and accompanying target control cannot be done in Germany,” he said, almost declaring that NATO allies had direct control over the weapons systems they made available . “What other countries do, which have different traditions and different constitutional institutions, is something that we cannot do in the same way.”

He said it is one thing to give weapons to Ukraine, and quite another if Germany aims them at targets. “We must not be associated with military targets at any point or in any place.”

But then came the leaked tapes, showing General Ingo Gerhartz, the country’s top air force officer. In General Gerhartz’s intercepted conversation, he and other officers were preparing a classified briefing they would give.

It described in detail how German soldiers would be needed for targeting, especially at hard-to-reach targets such as the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea with Ukraine.

The officers discussed how Germany could only send a maximum of 100 missiles, meaning every shot would have to count.

They also discussed how they could help program the Taurus in a way that would avoid linking Germany to the target, and without being forced to send German soldiers to Ukraine. One option, they suggested, was to work quietly through the weapons manufacturer, or by sending the targeting data overland to Ukraine.

“In the worst case scenario, I might even have to commute back and forth by car,” said one officer.

On Sunday, Roderich Kiesewetter, a member of the powerful parliamentary intelligence committee, said an unauthorized listener had apparently dialed into the call and was not noticed by the officers.

On Sunday afternoon, Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense minister, referred to the leak as a Russian “hybrid disinformation attack” and called for a sober response. “It’s about undermining our unity,” he told reporters.

During the town hall meeting, Germans who asked the chancellor made it clear that they would prefer their government to spend more at home and less on Ukraine.

The session started with a man asking the chancellor why he chose “the sword over the soul,” by which he meant providing military aid to Ukraine instead of negotiations with Russia.

When Mr Scholz said in his response that no German or NATO soldiers would be deployed in Ukraine, he received an ovation.

The topic of military aid has become more charged than ever, especially in the former East Germany – including Dresden – where many tell pollsters they are opposed to taking sides against Russia. Although members of Scholz’s shaky three-party coalition and Berlin’s conservative opposition have pushed the chancellor to supply increasingly sophisticated weapons, ordinary voters are not so sure.

In Dresden, Mr Scholz heard complaints about the one million Ukrainians who had come to Germany to flee the war, although the government said many have returned. Other critics of his policies, in an argument that parallels the position taken by many Republicans in Congress, say the money should be spent on domestic needs.

“If we are going to finance weapons for Ukraine,” said Daniel Ascher, “we should also invest money in our emergency services, because if things get worse” with Russia, “we will need them.”