On Wednesday, the leader of the opposition actually managed to lure the chancellor out of his reserve.

As requested by Friedrich Merz, Olaf Scholz deviated from the speech manuscript.

By his standards, the head of government almost combatively rejected the accusation of hesitation.

However, the chancellor once again made insufficient use of the opportunity to explain his government's line of war in Ukraine, which has been criticized at home and abroad.

This was shown both by his statements on the subject of arms deliveries and by the continued vacillation on the question of what goal Ukraine's rearmament should serve.

The CDU chairman's allegations about the government's hesitation in both fields were not just "talked about" as Scholz claimed.

It is true that since the beginning of the war Berlin has supported Ukraine with thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, millions of rounds of ammunition and other military equipment.

However, the “heavy weapons” that the Chancellor also mentioned, i.e. the Gepard anti-aircraft tank and the 2000 self-propelled howitzer, will not intervene in the theater of war for a few weeks at the earliest, where the Ukrainian armed forces are being pushed back onto the defensive by Russian material superiority.

Not even the twenty Czech T-72 tanks could prevent this, which Berlin booked on its own service list in the course of the “ring exchange”, which was only slowly gaining momentum.

Germany does not need to hide, the Chancellor exclaimed and announced the delivery of a modern air defense system that could protect "an entire city" from attacks.

That's good and right.

But why did the government only decide to do this three months after the start of the war, which Scholz also called “criminal”, in which several large cities had already been destroyed?

Only after the speech did it become known what the Chancellor meant

By the time the system is deployed in several months, more cities will be wiped out.

The Chancellor announced that he would support the American plan to provide the Ukrainians with rocket artillery "according to our technical possibilities".

Only after the speech did it become known what was meant by that: Berlin also wants to give Ukraine four multiple rocket launchers.

But why did the chancellor then hide these weapons behind "technical possibilities"?

It is unmistakable that Scholz has to take into account the mental anguish that the young and old left in the SPD have been suffering from since the proclamation of the “turning point”.

In addition, Berlin, like the rest of the West, is struggling with conflicting interests: the aim is to help those who have been attacked to repel an aggressor who has not only attacked a country, but also the principles of peaceful coexistence in Europe.

But you don't want to become a war party yourself.

Why nobody has delivered modern battle tanks so far

Not only the sending of its own troops, but also the delivery of powerful weapons could be viewed by Moscow as entry into the war in disguise, especially if these weapons contribute to Russia losing the war, i.e. having to withdraw from Ukraine.

It is not only due to the necessary training and logistics that no country has delivered modern main battle tanks and combat aircraft to Ukraine to date, including the United States.

The range reduction of the American rocket launchers also follows this line: the Russian armed forces in Ukraine are to be stopped and put under pressure so that Kyiv gets the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.

But even Washington does not want to bring Putin to the brink of a humiliating defeat that would endanger the survival of his regime.

It is feared that it could then start to lash out even more, even nuclear.

What turning point really means

This fear is also behind Berlin's egg dance on the subject of war goals.

The chancellor again avoided calling for a victory for Ukraine on Wednesday.

He said Putin "must not win".

But Scholz again failed to explain when Putin had not won.

What if he only occupies parts of Ukraine?

Withdraw behind the so-called contact line in Donbass?

Crimea gives up again?

It's easier to say that Ukraine must decide that, everything else is "arrogant and inappropriate".

In fact, the Scholz government also decides which war goals Kyiv can achieve in the battle of materials against the Kremlin.

It should also be clear in Berlin that time is not working for Ukraine in this war.

But the SPD in particular apparently still needs time to understand what "turning point" really means.

Keywords: