The Chancellor softened the drama of the moment with a businesslike speech.

Assault, war of aggression, inhumane, contrary to international law, a turning point, Olaf Scholz (SPD) stated before the fully occupied plenary session of the Bundestag;

this is the starting point.

On Thursday, when Russia's attack on Ukraine began, the federal government called a special session of parliament for the following Sunday - the chancellor himself was probably not yet clear what he would announce to the MPs and the nation there.

Peter Carstens

Political correspondent in Berlin

  • Follow I follow

Johannes Leithauser

Political correspondent in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

Eckhart Lohse

Head of the parliamentary editorial office in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

First, second, third, fourth, fifth, Scholz lists the "action orders" that he sees for the federal government in this situation.

You have it all.

First: arms deliveries to Ukraine;

"there could be no other answer to Putin's aggression".

Secondly: Sanctions against Russia, including its exclusion from the SWIFT bank settlement system, at least for those banks that have previously been affected by sanctions.

Scholz: Strengthen energy security

Third: a commitment to NATO "without ifs and buts";

Germany will defend "every square meter" of the alliance's territory.

President Putin should "not underestimate our determination," warns Scholz.

Three hours later, the aggressor Putin put his nuclear missiles on alert.

Fourth: the largest arms program for the Bundeswehr since the end of the Cold War, including new fighter jets capable of carrying American nuclear bombs and armed drones.

On both points, nuclear participation and the question of drones, the SPD had acted with delay or rejection for years, without Scholz having mentioned this in even a half-sentence.

His fifth mandate for action is that German energy security must be strengthened.

A little later, Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens) takes over the task of naming the federal government's security policy change.

She concedes that the decision to supply German anti-tank weapons to Ukraine represents a "180-degree turn" and states that this war requires "that we redraw the foundations of our foreign policy actions".

Perhaps it is the case that "Germany today is leaving behind a form of special and unique restraint in foreign policy," she muses, and presents a reason that had already played an important role in the coalition in the 24 hours before.

Baerbock argues that Russia ruthlessly attacked Ukraine.

And Ukraine, like every country, has a right to self-defence, which the UN Charter enshrines.

"And we have a duty to defend this, our UN charter." It sounds as if German arms aid ultimately does not apply to Ukraine, but to the United Nations.

The pressure on Berlin to give up its no to arms sales had been mounting steadily in the hours since the Russian attack began.

It also played a role that many of the Ukrainians' requests for help in the category of "non-lethal equipment", such as those for night vision devices, could not be fulfilled by the Bundeswehr due to a lack of their own stocks.

In the case of the Greens, the initiative in this matter passed from the Foreign Office to the Ministry of Economic Affairs on Friday, i.e. from Baerbock to Robert Habeck.

The Federal Security Council, the cabinet committee chaired by the Chancellery and responsible for deciding on arms deliveries, met on Saturday.