Many of the long chancellorship have been waiting for Angela Merkel's great, rousing speech.
But how should she deliver what she can't?
The same goes for Olaf Scholz.
And it also applies to the content.
Like the Federal President, the Chancellor is trapped: On the one hand, Russia's breach of civilization is clear.
He demands a clear answer.
Germany did not owe this answer from the start.
The verbal condemnation of the breach of international law was not lacking in clarity.
It's easy, of course, and doesn't cost much.
It is different with deeds.
Here there was, and still is, a gap between the size of the Russian atrocities and their own claims on the one hand and what they actually promised and delivered on the other.
The border to embarrassment was sometimes crossed here, especially in communication.
But this gap is also understandable;
and everyone is affected: no country, including America, wants to intervene directly militarily.
No one wants to become a "war party";
although at the same time no one wants to be neutral, and it hasn't been for a long time.
In particular, German history, especially on the anniversary of the unconditional surrender of the German Wehrmacht, does not make things any easier.
The “never again war”, at least on their own, is opposed to the “never again genocide”.
The greater the historical-moral claim, the greater the disappointment when one cannot deliver.
So lower the claim?
In any case, it is striking that with a view to the war, the German leadership is now issuing the slogan: Ukraine will “exist”.
So there will still be a Ukraine after the war.
Not more?
Actually, the message should be: No land seizure will be recognized.
No crime can go unpunished.
It may be that things turn out differently.
This is also because Ukraine's interests, despite being the victim of brutal aggression, are not congruent with those of its supporters.
This must also be made clear: we do not do everything that we could, but everything that we can be responsible for.