Chancellor Olaf Scholz had already been answering questions from members of the Bundestag for about an hour when Jürgen Hardt spoke up on Wednesday afternoon.

It sounded almost apologetic when he announced a "blatant change of subject".

"Unfortunately, I have to address it, Ukraine is in an extremely threatened situation, and has now come under new military pressure," said the foreign policy spokesman for the Union faction.

In his speech about the turn of the century, Scholz announced that Ukraine, which had been invaded by Russia, had to be supported.

At the end of April, there was agreement “among the parties of the centre” that Kyiv must be given heavy weapons so that Russian President Vladimir Putin would recognize that he could not go any further.

But if you now see what has become of the resolutions, we have "a few question marks".

Eckhart Lohse

Head of the parliamentary editorial office in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

Hardt recalled that German armaments companies had Marder-type armored personnel carriers in their yards, but that they were not being delivered to Ukraine.

"Who is there on the brakes?" the CDU man wanted to know from the Chancellor.

Scholz, remaining true to himself, answered evasively, listing which weapons deliveries had been decided and some had already taken place.

Then he added: "And we will always continue along this line, you can rely on it."

The chancellor hinted at least that further decisions could still be made.

However, there will be no going it alone without the allies.

That is a "management decision." Several ring exchanges have now been prepared, through which such "modernized weapons from German stocks" are also delivered.

Although Hardt followed up again, criticized the fact that Scholz had dodged the question and complained about a "stalling tactic by the chancellor, who did not go into the specific question of the marten deliveries.

He didn't even put the word "marten" in his mouth.

How should the consequences of the war be mitigated?

Even more remarkable than Olaf Scholz's not unusual dodge on concrete questions was the fact that the debate about German arms deliveries to the beleaguered Ukraine, which until recently still dominated the debate, only took place at the end of the hour-long interrogation of the chancellor.

And only briefly.

A little over four months after the start of the war against Ukraine, this is becoming increasingly common.

There is less talk about the military situation and the possibilities of direct or indirect help than about the consequences of the sanctions policy and, for some time now, the drastic reduction in gas supplies from Russia for the German economy and the population.

This shift in focus is by no means just coming from the government (in his introductory statement, Scholz even said something about the international situation and support for Ukraine).

It has also long since taken place in the parties.

At the beginning of the debate, the CDU foreign policy expert Johann Wadephul tried to get details from Scholz about a possible security guarantee for Ukraine - without hearing any real news - but then it was largely about climate policy.

An even bigger issue was how to mitigate the economic and social impact of the war.

Scholz wants to “hit the hook”

Scholz kept coming back to the new edition of the concerted action, which he initiated and whose participants met for the first time on Monday.

"I say again, if trade unions and employers' associations, if the state, if the Bundesbank, the council of experts discuss and develop proposals together, then that's the best thing we have in Germany." The social partnership has made Germany strong and it will " us as a country” to continue to be strong in the future.

The Federal Chancellor often used the term “under the hook”, which gave the impression of wanting to spread the responsibility for a very large task across as many shoulders as possible.

The leader of the Left Party, Janine Wissler, said that the hooking usually does not mean anything good for the employees.

She wanted to know whether Scholz meant wage restraint like with the Concerted Action in the 1960s.

Scholz reacted poisonously.

One should try to "free oneself from the world of one's own prejudices at some point."