The weapon that paralyzes logistics
Not delivering Taurus is the wrong decision
A comment from Frauke Niemeyer
October 5, 2023, 10:05 p.m
As of today it is known: Germany is not complying with the Ukrainians’ request for Taurus cruise missiles. This costs Ukraine time that it does not have. It costs combat power, which it urgently needs, and not least human lives.
There are no game changers in war, no silver bullet that can alone turn the tide. Experts have been explaining this for months and are still pleading for Ukraine to be helped with Taurus cruise missiles, which Olaf Scholz – as of today – does not want to supply.
Why the demands? Because the outcome in the battle at the front depends to a considerable extent on how well a warring party is able to supply weapons, ammunition and troops during the ongoing battle. The quality of logistics determines whether damaged weapons come back repaired, whether the combatants can make full use of their ammunition supplies and whether they feel well supplied in other ways, and therefore – how combat-capable the troops are.
Many Russian units in the south of Ukraine are probably now weakened and are struggling with supply problems, but they are on the defensive and have it easier. They don’t have to move, but instead repel the Ukrainian attacks from well-secured positions. The Russians stop Kiev’s advances with paved minefields and plenty of air support. The advancing Ukrainians have so far been unable to achieve the necessary superiority that is needed for a successful offensive against this Russian defense. It is to be feared that this will remain the case until the end of this offensive.
Taurus could cut off important supply routes
But what would be possible: to damage the Russian forces in a very lasting way and with a view to the coming year in terms of their logistics. This is already happening with Storm Shadow (British) and SCALP (French) cruise missiles. This could be greatly expanded if Germany joined in with its Taurus. All three were developed by the same defense company MDBA. But Taurus can do a little more.
With its long range and its insensitivity to Russian GPS jammers, it would be particularly well suited to cutting off supply routes to and from Crimea. Security expert Carlo Masala estimates that around 85 percent of Russian troops are currently supplied via Crimea. Anyone who starts here can have a big impact, including on the battlefield next spring.
This central argument in favor of Taurus delivery is countered by arguments against it. Those that Olaf Scholz made before the Foreign Affairs Committee can be refuted: If one were to become a warring party through the supply of geodata, Great Britain and France would already have to be involved. Their cruise missiles also need geodata. London and Paris could possibly even have the data for the Taurus delivered at Berlin’s request? Would be worth considering.
Berlin is actually not allowed to send soldiers to Ukraine to program the cruise missile. But international law says nothing against the manufacturer’s technicians and nothing against having Ukrainians trained by the company in Germany. That would certainly take a few months, but this war will most likely not end in 2024. It is advisable to also think for the future.
The factors mentioned by Scholz would not stand in the way of a Taurus delivery if the Chancellor really wanted to deliver. However, one can still have concerns: the cruise missile is not an “off-the-shelf” item, but was specifically developed to repel a possible Russian attack across the Baltic Sea. If a crashed example fell into the hands of the enemy, Moscow might gain insight into sensitive German armaments technology, explicitly tailored to Russian capabilities.
Valuable for the development of Taurus II
But this factor does not have to be an exclusion criterion if Berlin decides – like France and Great Britain – to use the valuable experience that Ukraine is now gaining in use with Western cruise missiles to develop a successor. This data from a real war, which no military exercise, no matter how sophisticated, can ever produce, would be worth its weight in gold for the arms industry and thus for a Taurus II.
Chancellor Scholz has decided against it. This is tragic for the Ukrainians who are losing their lives on the battlefield because their Western partners do not provide them with the same level of support that would be given to their own troops. But it is also unfortunate for Germany itself, which is missing an opportunity to think further into the future when it comes to defense.