At the start of the meeting of Ukraine supporters in Ramstein, Berlin maneuvered itself into a difficult position. “Don’t go it alone” was the chancellor’s mantra. But with the “Leopard” blockade he is now actually alone, Frank Sauer states in an interview with ntv.de. The security expert, who teaches at the University of the Federal Armed Forces in Munich, can only explain Olaf Scholz’s blockade with one motive: that in the event of a – possibly nuclear – escalation, nothing should weigh on Germany.
ntv.de: How much pressure is Germany in Ramstein?
Frank Sauer: Much more pressure than at present is not possible. But since things are always changing, you always have to wait for the next twist. In any case, it now looks as if Olaf Scholz had maneuvered himself offside. On Wednesday it was said that Berlin would make deliveries of the “Leopard II” and export permits for other countries dependent on the United States delivering “Abrams” tanks. That alone was astonishing, but can perhaps still be explained if one takes the maxim of avoiding going it alone very broadly conceptually. The US just turned it down. They will – that’s the current status – not deliver “Abrams”.
If I may interject briefly: This condition that Olaf Scholz made of the USA is due to his understanding of “coordination with partners”? That everyone has to deliver the same thing? Doesn’t voting actually mean doing what you think is right, but in coordination with each other and not alone?
Frank Sauer conducts research at the Bundeswehr University in Munich and is an expert on security policy, which he regularly discusses in the “Sicherheitshalber” podcast.
Months ago, the United States began to state clearly that we in Europe are free to act independently and of course not everyone always has to do exactly the same thing. Voting would mean: Everyone agrees that everyone is doing something within the agreed framework. In the meantime, one can actually only come to the conclusion that the dictum of wanting to avoid going it alone is not the actual motivation behind the decisions in the Chancellery.
What do you conclude that from?
From the fact that Olaf Scholz is now going it alone. Poland has been saying very clearly for days, “We want to deliver”, signals have been coming from Finland for a while, “We want to deliver”, the British said at the weekend, “If there is no other way, we’ll look for 14 challengers together”. And France is also examining the delivery of 12 Leclerc. Then today the Tallinn Declaration, in which Estonia, Great Britain, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania as well as the representatives of Denmark, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Slovakia clearly state: We must also deliver battle tanks together. That means everyone is acting now, and many are begging the German chancellor for export permits for “Leopard II,” and Scholz says “no going it alone,” while he’s doing exactly that by refusing: going it alone.
So if “No Solo Trials” can’t be the motive behind his solo effort, what does it say instead?
The master variable explaining Scholz’s behavior is concern about escalation. Scholz aims to ensure that the responsibility for an escalation – possibly even Putin’s use of a nuclear weapon – does not fall on Germany afterwards. All the other justifications for not delivering the “Leopard” have meanwhile collapsed: availability, logistics, repairs, training, all of that has been refuted. It has long since worked with other weapon systems. One thing was always: We don’t go it alone – and that’s no longer true either.
There really isn’t much left.
Of course, there is also a significant proportion of the German population who perceive Scholz’s actions as prudent and approve of them. According to current survey data, the German population is pretty much divided on the question of battle tanks. Of course, this domestic political motive also plays a role. That is completely understandable and correct in a democracy.
But isn’t that enough?
As German chancellor, Scholz must of course also consider the consequences of his behavior on the international stage. What does that mean for the transatlantic alliance and for the obligation to provide assistance in NATO? What does it mean for the European security architecture? What crop damage are we causing in Central and Eastern Europe? Is the current situation compatible with the claim to leadership in Europe that he formulated for the turning point of Germany?
Could the interest in “Leopard” deliveries also benefit Germany?
If you were to think strategically in a very callous manner, then the “Leopard” tanks would be a good lever for Germany in terms of defense and economic policy and European security. From this perspective, it would be a stroke of luck that everyone who uses the device and now wants to give it away would have to buy new “Leopards”. Germany could exert influence with armaments cooperation. But will many neighboring countries still want to buy “Leopard” after this week?
How much music is still in Ramstein, based on the battle tank question?
I think it’s likely that if we talk on the phone again tomorrow things will have turned around again. It is difficult to imagine that the conflict will persist in this state. One has to be clear again: Olaf Scholz said: “I only offer “Leopard” tanks under one condition”, and the USA said “No” to this condition. Ukraine is suffering. A solution will be found.
Poland hints that it would also supply “Leopards” without a permit. Conceivable?
As far as I know, Poland has not submitted an export application. In addition, election campaigns in Poland are also made with the topic. On the other hand, in extreme cases, no one can prevent Poland from actually loading the tanks onto wagons and driving them to Ukraine. Politically, that would be a scandal, and the German-Polish armaments cooperation would be in the bucket. I don’t see what’s gained by that; that we let it get that far that such actions are in the room. The topic could have been cleared up long ago.
At the beginning of the week one could still count on the “Leopard” being waved through in Ramstein.
And when that happens in the end, Germany has managed to smash as much porcelain as possible without needing to. I don’t get it, honestly.
Will this topic dominate Ramstein? The question of ammunition would also be worth discussing.
The fact that Germany only does what is necessary when there is absolutely no other option costs a lot of political bandwidth, which means that long-term planning falls by the wayside. Ukraine’s ammunition consumption is exorbitant, which is why it is urgently necessary to vote in the coalition on how we can secure supplies in the next six months. So we should talk more about what we intend to do to help Ukraine in six months or a year. I expect the US to announce at Ramstein the delivery of “Stryker” wheeled armored personnel carriers and the “Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb” (GLSDB). Sweden delivered howitzers and, surprisingly, 50 armored personnel carriers with 40 mm guns. All of which bring much-needed skills to Ukraine. But the whole thing will be overshadowed by the “Leopard” question.
Frauke Niemeyer spoke to Frank Sauer