Don’t Praise Olaf Scholz for Finally Doing the Right Thing

Throughout the war in Ukraine, Western leaders have been celebrated for doing the bare minimum.

By
47
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that he will send battle tanks to Ukraine. (Photo by Michael Kappeler/picture alliance/Getty Images.)

The Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once quipped, “Nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other options.” No other statement from history can better describe the German government’s sudden decision to deliver Leopard main battle tanks to Ukraine. After months of hesitation—more like borderline resistance—Chancellor Olaf Scholz has finally agreed to send the Bundeswehr’s most powerful tool to the aid of the embattled Ukrainians, but only after facing increased pressure from other NATO allies. 

The German chancellor had indeed exhausted all other options—or excuses. Scholz first claimed that he would not do it unless there was international support—so Poland, Finland, and the United Kingdom all pledged to send tanks of their own—yet Scholz ignored them. Then Scholz hid behind the fact that the major German arms conglomerate Rheinmetall said it couldn’t supply Leopard 2 tanks until at least 2024. Finally, in the most farcical of excuses, the German leader claimed to have met a Polish jogger who told him he was afraid that sending Leopard tanks to Ukraine would cause an escalation in the war—so he could not send them. 

The effort Scholz put into not delivering tanks—and not allowing other nations to send their Leopards—would have been laughable if it weren’t so concerning. Yet, now that he has finally come around, he will be lavished with praise. Praise that, frankly, is unwarranted: While he dithered, Ukrainians senselessly died on the battlefield.

Western European media outlets and a steady stream of politicians are already congratulating Scholz for his decision, often awkwardly avoiding the long road that it took to get there. This is especially true of German media, which has treated the issue as being a matter of strong resolve by the government. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
47
By
Comments (47)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Cegoodman85

    Agreed! I have been embarrassed by our own foot-dragging. How many lives saved if we had been quicker to help?

    Collapse
  2. Rune485

    Agree on all points, although I’m not all that impressed by our own efforts either.
    “We’re giving the UKR everything they need” months after they needed it wore thin…months ago.

    Collapse
  3. Egal.Fabrice

    Respectfully, I think people should in fact be praised when they eventually come around to do the minimum. If it was easy for them, they would have done it immediately.

    Most of Asia and Africa hasn't lifted a finger for Ukraine. Those who eventually do send dozens of tanks to help the country, however belatedly, have done more than all the bystanders put together.

    Collapse
    1. On Fox River

      Absolutely. The United States, for example, was more than two years late to the fight in World War II, also because of domestic political resistance, yet you didn't hear many Brits griping when we finally got into it.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Thomas Grimmer

      Yup. Tepid support is better than neutrality, and especially hostility.

      Collapse
  4. Ben.Bobbitt

    How much of a role is Russian information warfare playing in this? Are the people (and therefore their elected leaders) being heavily influenced by social media or other ‘weapons’ in the information space? That doesn’t excuse their inaction, but it may provide some context.

    These are democracies, after all, and we have to at least admit that the will of the people in those countries should matter. Effective leaders who are able to rally their people would be nice, of course, but those are in short supply these days. President Zelensky being a striking contrast to the less inspiring leaders in the west.

    We have to bear in mind our own history. Churchill was practically begging for help from the US in the early days of WW2, and we delayed and dithered and made excuses while British civilians died by the thousands (estimated at 43,000) as German bombers roamed the skies over London in an early version of Putin’s strategy in Ukraine to punish the civilians for their resistance. But Roosevelt had to contend with an electorate that was largely opposed to any more involvement in a foreign war. Trickles of support, some rhetorical support, waiting, waiting, while people died and the fate of Europe hung in the balance. Finally, when we had exhausted all the other options, we did the right thing.

    That history of our own does not excuse the current inaction. If anything it should swerve as a lesson that in the end we will discover that earlier action would have been the less costly path. As Gary Kasparov continues to warn us, the price of stopping a dictator like Putin only goes up as time passes.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    The soft bigotry of low expectations is at work with Germany’s commitment to Ukraine again.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ethan Cordray

    I would *love* a deep-dive analysis of why exactly Germany has been playing these games with their support. Is it Scholz's personal positions? Is it because of the internal politics of the SPD? Is public opinion divided? What are the factors that Scholz and others cite for their hesitancy (do they talk about the economics and logistics of gas dependency, or do they downplay that)? Is there a more hawkish bloc in Germany that could see political gains and push things in a better direction?

    It seems like the contrast between Poland and Germany is like night and day, and I'd love to know in great detail why that is.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Thomas Grimmer

      Gory details aside, I imagine it's quite simple. Eighty years of abandoning militarism due to proper shame over WWII has made the population and government especially reticent to appear even mildly aggressive. Even Jonah has made jokes to this effect. More eastern countries with a worse history with Russia know better, and more western countries don't feel guilty.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    I remember commentators saying that Germany is now the leader of the free world when trump became president. Germany had a great opportunity to lead in Ukraine, but they failed. They failed to find a diplomatic solution after Russia's 2014 invasion. After their failed diplomacy they dragged their feet to send weapons, and inexplicably stopped third party countries from sending German equipment.

    And for the love of God, why are they so insisting that we send Abrams. These tanks are complicated and will have Ukrainian mechanics and logistical personnel cursing at us. So now they need to procure spare parts for the abrams, maintenance people to specifically focus on the abrams (and not the Leopards), and jet fuel to run the tanks (because our tanks use jet fuel, not diesel, for some reason).

    Collapse
    1. On Fox River

      "Jet fuel" isn't an exotic hyper-powerful form of liquid lightning. It's a blend of common kerosene.

      Collapse
    2. Daniel.Moseley

      Abrams can run on other fuels, though it can affect maintenance schedules and degrade performace.

      JP-8 is closer to kerosene and is abundantly available in the US military. Between its performance, the turbine engine's power:weight ratio, and its silence (for a tank), it was a great design.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    MarqueG68

    The criticism here only scratches the surface. Scholz’s party itself is unspeakably corrupt when it comes to Russia. Nakedly so when it comes to Schröder and Steinmeier. And the German press, too, is so cravenly in favor of the SPD and Greens that they won’t report honestly on this corruption,

    If any CDU or FDP pols had behaved in such a way, the German media and commentariat would have been beside themselves with indignation.

    Collapse
    1. Daniel.Moseley

      Let's not pretend the CDU is without sin, especially re: Ostpolitik.

      Collapse
      1. On Fox River

        Ostpolitic was a Soviet-friendly policy initiated by SDP leader Willi Brandt, not the CDU. During the Cold War, the CDU was the German mainstay in holding the line against the Soviet Union. CDU leader Angela Merkel later got soft-headed with the supposedly peaceful new Russia, as did lots of otherwise sensible people, but she wasn't around when the SDP was flirting with Communists.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        MarqueG68

        Certainly. But they weren't as heavily overrun with young enthusiasts of communist revolution, of Marxist-Leninist sympathizers. Yes, KGB and Stasi looked for and found ways of infiltration, but not on the scope and scale they leveraged within the SPD and its far-left splinter groups.

        Collapse
  9. Emma

    My grandfather was a wwii veteran. He said the French were only good for their shoelaces.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Thomas Grimmer

      And yet they still lost far more of their population (percentage wise) in WWII than either the US or UK. And especially so in WWI. So, maybe your grandfather was wrong.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Francesca

    The UK is strangely absent from this article. We have been training Ukrainian soldiers since 2015.

    Collapse
    1. J_D_H

      He could probably make it clearer that his criticisms apply to Continental Western Europe, but the UK isn't absent from the article. This is from paragraph six, "While the United States, Poland, and the United Kingdom rushed to provide arms, Germany ignored the pressure to make similar transfers."

      Collapse
Load More