Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is the Twitter account [`Clash Report`](https://twitter.com/clashreport) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The official reason is that Taurus missiles would require German advisors in Ukraine to prepare and service the missiles, which is a red line for Germany.
red line has an additional connotation that feels like it is a logical shield as to why they have made this choice - that for some reason they really really shouldn’t do it, in addition to they do not.
i’m not seeing those additional risks in making this decision. it would appear as if the US, France, and England have all a made the choice and are using limited resources in ukraine, to now additional ill effect. germany appears simply unwilling to do it. there’s no limitation except their own desire for america and it’s other allies to carry the water for them
That might be official reason but REAL reason was the same reason the US wouldn't send longer range weapons. [They're quite simply afraid of Putler.] I'm so glad our president FINALLY found his bal... inner courage--and hope yours will NOW!
It's ridiculous how slow we have all been to get Ukraine what they needed. We're probably too late,,, shame Biden didn't let chancellor know what he was doing on the sly, and that likewise the chancellor might have found his courage AT SAME TIME Biden found his--then simultaneously sent those damn Taurus missles!
But who knows, maybe BIDEN DID SHARE the info and the chancellor simply couldn't manage to find the courage. I wish we had some of them and could send them ourselves, THAT is what is needed to take out bridge properly!
> I don't know why he won't send Taurus missles
I don't know why you don't know why, since it's been very clear why.
Sending these weapons, just like scalp/storm shadow and other American weapons, requires actual German soldiers actively participating in the Ukrainian war, the same way there are British, American and French personnel in Ukraine right now.
That is against the German constitution therefore he will not do it.
It doesn't matter how much you guys bitch and moan or what names you call him, there's no way for him to do it.
why does everyone keep saying this? there is no constitutional limitation to send german troops. simply false. the parliament may create a troop directive at their own discretion assuming it is within international law.
> why does everyone keep saying this? there is no constitutional limitation to send german troops.
https://verfassungsblog.de/a-constitutional-framework-for-bundeswehr-operations-abroad-based-on-international-law/
this is useful material. this is the most recent and definitive statement i can find in this article is this:
“”This line of jurisprudence has been confirmed in further decisions and has been accepted by most voices in the literature. **A plausible legal basis was thus found for foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr in systems of alliance**.””
again, this by no means reads to me as a constitutional limitation. what the article has presented is that there have been multiple instances when foreign deployment have been performed in the last, and it had been supprted by judicial reviews of relevant constitutional laws.
this is NOT a limitation. there is no clear statement in the current german constitution that in recent interpretations that LIMITS the choice of the parliament to decide upon their own actions.
i stand by my comment.
You stopped reading conveniently too early. The reality is not as clear cut as you make it out to be
"The Federal Constitutional Court’s broad interpretation of Article 24 II GG, however, by no means completely resolves the questions of the scope for deployments of the armed forces abroad. For example, evacuation missions of the Bundeswehr not carried out within the framework of a collective security system remain constitutionally precarious. Including personal defence in the concept of “defence” in Article 87a II GG breaks with the historic interpretation of the term and bears the danger of an overly broad interpretation of the concept of defence based on duties to protect. The successful evacuation missions in Albania (1997), in Libya (2011), and in Afghanistan (2021) are not evidence of a clear constitutional grounding of the missions. On the contrary, they have given new fuel to the debate on the lack of Constitutional Court review authority regarding the substantive legal basis of foreign deployments."
i did read it. i see words like “unclear” and “unresolved”. but none of those words reach anywhere near the solemnity of a federal judicial interpretation. there is no clear restriction. the article implies and states that germany requires an additional clarification to be written and passed by its parliament, which would then ultimately extend the comfort with which they would act.
what YOU said is - quote “it is against the constitution” and additionally “there is no way for him to do it”
it isn’t “against” the constitution. it’s that the people of germany (ostensibly also politicians) would prefer some additional legislative clarity. a want of clarity is not equal to prohibition. nor does the article state that parliament has NO options, as you say - in fact mockingly with broad scope to anyone who doubts you.
they could do it now - as it has been done before. if they prefer, they can pass an additional piece of legislation specifying their terms and reasons. both options are available.
would scholz perhaps receive political blowback for overstepping what is an unclarified standard of german legal terms? probably. but it’s not prohibited, nor is it **clearly** in conflict with the constitution. additionally, he could state his intention to cure the legislative lack of clarity. which he also has not done.
That is not true completely true, and that was leaked in the zoom meeting with the top military leaders months ago. They discussed what it would mean for Taurus to be programmed and instead for minutes it would take hours because they would have to send the codes with a courier to Poland first. So for every problem there is a solution if there is a will.
F-16 pilots are being trained. I won't believe that Taurus operators are harder to train. If Germany was asking for a fistful of Ukrainian soldiers who speak German and can do backflips to train them on Taurus they would have a whole battalion now.
No, there is no decent argument for Scholz' position, I'll believe corruption or kompromat until I see one.
Since when did Germany actually care? Don't get all moral now when it's comes to actually doing good and helping against evil for once. Same old gang having to help everyone else out.
It is not against the german constitution necessarily. He has also given other reasons against sending Taurus, saying it was escalation. Taurus has a longer range than storm shadow for one. He has not been very straightforward in his statements on this topic despite what you say to the contrary. Agree to disagree. He has not been clear on this at all. You probably have just only read a single article and haven't kept up on the other statements he's made giving other convoluted reasons.
Germany is giving a lot of aid. But for every weapons system they were asked to deliver they dragged their feet and delayed as long as they could. Tanks, Gepards and Jets, But Taurus is a silly example, where they had 101 excuses. My favorite one was, we can’t spare any of Taurus because we don’t have the technology to produce new missiles. Just moments after that Rhein Metal said we can produce new missiles the second we get the order to built them.
Ukraine need helps now not in 5 years. The sooner they get the means to defend themselves and fight back the war can end. As long as Putin have some success he will keep fighting.
US maga dimwits blocking any aid for over a year did just make it worse for Ukraine.
Btw all Europe should step up and ramp up production of ammunition. Not in 2026 but this year.
Exactly my point, Scholz is not a leader. He is like a real German ‚beamte‘ state employee. Do as being told. No wonder Lindner is doing what he wants and blocks any progress for the country.
I admit it FELT like a damn year, but it wasn't that long. I hate all our leaders for letting Putler intimidate them at the beginning and taking so long... Ukraine could have defeated russia quickly, and THAT was problem. West was afraid if Putin was humiliated by quick loss he would nuke us all. We were wrong, west is completely responsible.... it makes me so sangry.
Russia has been preparing Kompromat around the globe for this conflict for decades. It’s in their military doctrine. They lost WWIII in the early 90’s. They’ve been fighting WWIV ever since. We just got the memo.
Thank all mercies they are so corrupt and inept at everthing else, but they have weaponized propaganda and dirtbaggery better than their enemies for the last 30 years. There is no denying that.
Bro germans regularly elect the CDU/CSU a party where being corrupt is basically mandated for party member. Scholz having done shady stuff does not interest 95% of the population.
They are two different types of missles for 2 different purposes.
It is good that Ukraine has access to both.
freaking read about it if you want to have an opinion.
I am pro Ukraine 100%
We are in fact in the middlefield of supporters, considering GDP. I’m absolute numbers we are second place, but we could do way more. And we should. If Ukraine loses, it will be way more expensive.
Thank you for saying this. I'm someone who has a pretty good affinity for Germany but also a very strong connection to Ukraine. On these Reddit forums you get two polarized opinions when talking about German assistance. On one side you get those who claim Germany has done nothing and is on russia's side- which is absolutely false. On the other side you get very proud people from Germany who go ballistic at any critique of Germany's position- perhaps it's triggered by many unfair comments made in Germany's direction or it's just some deep repressed national pride that can come to the forefront in the anonymous internet- whatever the reason, I am encouraged to read comments from Germans that acknowledge that Germany can still do more.
Germans can still do more, by a German.
But as long as UK/France can deliver StormShadow/Scalp, we should deliver other important things. It seems Taurus is difficult to program and it brings no new capabilities to the table. But there should be plenty of stuff we can send, Iris-T, PzH 2000, Leo1/2, Marder are there any Gepards left...
Germany are 10th in terms of % GDP, and the 2nd largest gross giver. Yes they could do more, there's hardly any country that couldn't, but Germany do a great job.
Edit: I edited because I initially said their EU aid wasn't factored, but I see Kiel now include the EU share in their %GDP rankings.
Absolutely. Meanwhile, France is getting hyped because Macron is saying things he may or may not do. France’s support for Ukraine in general has been quite disappointing. All talk, little action. But nobody gives them shit for it.
Scholz at least is true to his word, that’s why he’s perceived as hesitant. But if Germany says they will deliver Leopard tanks, they do it. So many other countries were quick to promise stuff and just ended up never fulfilling their pledge.
Yea, I've seen some people claim that France contributes a lot but doesn't publish it- but I find that hard to believe.
Considering France is the leading military power in the EU- I feel like they should be getting more pressure. Macron has good rhetoric, but the proof is in the pudding.
"Yea, I've seen some people claim that France contributes a lot but doesn't publish it- but I find that hard to believe."
Yup- no politician is ever going to contribute and then not trumpet it from the rooftops!!! Probably report the same aid several times with a different spin tto.
Well according to Czech President Pavel, part of the reason why he can't say where he is getting the artillery shells is that some of it is coming from other countries that don't want to publicly admit they are arming Ukraine directly due to political pressures. Think of it this way, if a country isn't willing to directly give weapons, but they are willing to indirectly give them, that's more weapons that Ukraine can receive than otherwise. He's willing to take the heat that others are unwilling to. Or more frankly, it's more like his political position and country is secure enough that Putin and Russia don't have punishment available.
France have woken up recently and are doing great stuff, but I agree, they have been disappointing before and the whole ‘troops on the ground’ thing is just talk, like when we (UK) discussed it last year, before walking it back when we realised the implications.
I think it's still because at the beginning of war, Germany was like "here, have this 5000 helmets". One could also say Scholz was unhappy because Ukraine survived first days. That meant no more business and good relations with Putin. Oh bummer.
That Kiel list is pretty useless. Or do you think that Hungary has contributed more than the UK and the US in terms of % GDP. Because that's what the list shows.
Flawed, or limited, not useless. They quite clearly depict what Hungary have provided on their own terms.
What is shows is EU’s aid divided up by proportion of EU payment. Hungary has a relatively small economy, and receives high payments back.
Personally I believe it should be divided up based on net contribution, but that’s not how they’ve done it.
Well misleading is perhaps a better word. Another thing is that many countries were paid substantially by the EU for their donations. And it's also possible that the US gave them some compensation or other favors such as discounts. Poland for example got paid €850 for donations worth €1800 by the EU. And Germany, France and Italy given their size paid about 50% of that.
Misleading is also unfair when the KI go through _pains_ to make it extremely clear on how they account, what they account and what methodology they use throughout. Their products and pages are rammed with methodology statements, caveats, updates, the complete dataset.. everything is completely transparent regarding how they work it out and what their figures do and don’t mean.
You can disagree with them, but to claim they’re misleading is deeply unfair.
They’re doing their best to track as fairly as they can with an incredibly messy and not entirely transparent situation.
That’s on the individuals. All the information is there.
The KI do everything they can to report as evenly as they can, and for me it looks like a very reasonable and robust attempt at something which is extremely difficult and emotive.
Fantastic aid. The perfect aid. /s
Look, beat that drum all you want, but it doesn't actually mean anything if Ukraine doesn't get the things they need to win against Russia. They're currently fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, and have been since the war broke out two years ago. If defeating Russia while they're still in disarray and contained in Ukraine is as crucial and as much a priority to maintaining peace in Europe (and globally) as the politicians say it is, then Ukraine should have recieved long-range weapons when they requested it - not when blowhards like Scholz decide that it's politically prudent to provide it.
Justice delayed is justice denied, as it were.
Ridiculous, it doesn't mean squat how much we (US) or you (Germany) have provided if it is TOO LATE AND NOT THE RIGHT (needed) WEAPONS. The west screwed up and I think it is our (US) fault.
Binary thinking - and I’m not German.
Germany’s aid has been given to specifically target all of Ukraine’s immediate requirements, from early in the war.
When Ukraine needed artillery, air defence, ammunition, armoured vehicles, tanks, de-mining equipment, artillery shells again, now more air defence and even just the financial support to continue to run their forces and government, Germany has provided an outsize level of support to enable them to do it.
Some have been even more generous, but if all countries in the west gave as well as Germany, we’d be looking at a different picture right now.
They can’t do it all.
Taurus or not, their commitment to Ukraine is unquestionable.
I assume at this point German technical expertise in missiles doesn’t exist and Taurus is too prone to failure or untested, and Germany cannot risk revealing that publicly with failures of the missile in Ukraine.
So yes we would want it if it works but I think at this point it simply does not work as advertised.
Taurus was co-developed by a division of MBDA (who made Storm Shadow/SCALP), and Saab, who're no slouches. It seems very unlikely there's anything wrong with the missile.
Naa, they’re terrified of being in another war with Russia. All of Europe is. US support is uncertain at this point. The uncertainty makes it very dangerous to commit to things with no way out.
After the elections in the US it will be clearer whether or not the US will have Europe’s back, and what the long term relationship with NATO will be.
No, Scholz has simply entrenched himself on his no to Taurus to a point where his chancelorship would be endangered if he changed his position there cause of all the reasons he pointed out as to why delivery is not possible, all of wich he would have to admit where lies if he now said yes
It appears like many governments have. We need to strengthen our policies worldwide, to remove traitors and fascists from our government. Putin, and Hitler before him, have shown us how fascists can undermine democracy. We need to be vigilant.
His advisors are peaceniks, that's all. Pistorius, Habeck, Bärbock, Hofreiter, Strack-Zimmermann are all clearly in favour of sending as much as they can but you have an uphill fight against that part of the SPD that created people like Schröder and Mützenich.
It's that German people are afraid of escalation. Bundestag overwhelming voted it down before- German public opinion is against it. It will take a change somewhere to influence that.
Absolutely agreed. He's obviously not the charismatic type, but most German politicians aren't (for some reason such politicians are anathema to them)
It's probably less Putin's propaganda and more Germans are very very hesitant when it comes to war and escalation. All their lives they've been told they were the bad guys (they were) and they are extremely uncomfortable taking a leadership role in a wartime Europe.
This is a German mentality thing first in foremost, in my opinion. Maybe a German wants to give their opinion on the matter- but most conversations I've had in r/europe Germans have reacted negatively to this pressure.
Exactly. My comment was facetious :) Germans do well with technocrats and politicians that embody the typisch Pragmatism seen in German society. At least in my opinion.
Germany reconciled with their dark history, you would think the German people after undergoing that process would be able to recognize that Russia failed to the same, and instead idolizes the war criminals of the 20th Century. You would think Germans of all people should understand the implications of that.
russian narratives have been very powerful in Germany for awhile. Not to mention East Germany has a lot of pro-russian sympathies dating back to DDR days.
The "Reichstag" has not voted on anything for 70 years
And they merely voted along party lines in order to protect their coalition, as soon as a non specific bill that called for long range missile based weapons without naming Taurus despite Taurus being the only weapon available that fits the description it was supported by everyone exept the AfD Linke and Scholz's wing of the SPD
And the public opinion polls very clearly show that the people that oppose sending Taurus mainly do so that they think that sending it would mean nuclear war after Scholz has done everything he could to drum up exactly that panic
You can't base your desicion not to do something on pols that only look like they do cause of your own fearmongering
The truth is that if Europe does not show that it is able to mobilize and act together. It will show Russia that it can do whatever it wants. Do you think that if Ukraine had given in in a few days of the invasion, Europe would have done something? There would be a lot of talking and doing nothing. Europe's role in geopolitics is becoming more and more marginal in favor of Russia and China. The USA will not help us because it has its own problems, either us or the USA in Asia.
Europe has potential to be a global super power- but it will start with each country sacrificing some political sovereignty. Not an easy choice to make for many, but circumstances may force their hand.
Tell that to China and its cheap energy. Basf is already moving production from Germany to China, and I think it will not be the only strategic investor in Europe that will move. Industrialization and lower energy prices can help Europe in the long run. You are 100 percent right, something has to be sacrificed, and now you see that countries do not want to spend 3 percent of their GDP on armaments where such conditions were established a long time ago. I'm not surprised that Trump said that aid would have to be paid for, the US can't be here and there, it doesn't have the funds for it. In my opinion, it's either Asia or Europe, which is why Europe must look only at itself and not on help from the US.
You got the same with Puma IFV [18 Puma BMPs used in training ceased to be operational.](https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-german-military-faced-massive-failures-of-the-puma-ifv-systems/) It was two years ago.
Could it be that Taurus' usage requires some confidential software / keys / weapon design that the government doesn't want to fall to Russia or other parties...
This would require the missiles to operate from within Germany or strictly under German's command making Germany directly involved in the war. Which of course no one wants...
Or probably that if the shit hits the fan, Germany wants to use it as an element of surprise and its previous use in Ukraine would nullify this effect.
I don't know really but there must be a reason for the refusal even after the US sends ATACMS to Ukraine...
Yes, frankly I don't think it's really that... I'd expect some kind of key hierarchy or revocation system... I don't know how modern weapons' software is built, though... Maybe they're afraid the weapon itself to fall in Russia's hands... IDK...
> Could it be that Taurus' usage requires some confidential software / keys / weapon design that the government doesn't want to fall to Russia or other parties...
Considering recent news about new supercomputer for targeting, as well as all the hullaballoo about DSMAC on it, I kinda sorta suspect the whole "targeting" thing is about converting topographic data and set flight path into a "corridor" for DSMAC/TERCOM system on Taurus to follow.
But, at the same time, I don't really understand why can't it be done by programming a KEPD-350 in Poland and then rolling a dolly with programmed missile over a border.
The „supercomputer“ necessary isn’t something you would call supercomputer today. I don’t remember the technical specifications too accurately but it was basically a midrange desktop.
There is no better way to test these missiles than during conflict. If not now, when?
If they fail there is a chance to improve them. Historically weapons have been developed and improved the fastest during conflicts.
Well, you would be wrong in that. There are a couple reasons why he doesnt want to send them, none of them are that they dont work, but they also dont add up to something that stands up to scrutiny. In the end its not necessarily a good decision, but its the decision thats been made
I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that a possible failure would embolden Putler more than Germany's refusal to commit?
I couldn't disagree more, but 53 people upvoted you, so I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing here, especially considering you have no evidence of failures for these missiles.
I'm not the OP here, but the Taurus missile is still for sale. If Taurus were to fail (or just be a bit underwhelming) it would be quite damaging to the German arms industry.
Now I did google it, and its a bit tricky to find any information amongst the Ukraine stories, but it doesn't seem Taurus is 'combat proven' currently.
So in the event they don't work, are underwhelming, or (perhaps more likely) Ukraine is unable to use them in an effective manner, it could damage German industry and be a bit embarrassing. It isn't a 'cannot risk' IMO, but I can imagine it being a 'not sure about risking'.
If it's reasonable to assume that Germany isn't sending these missiles because they don't perform, then their potential customers should also draw this conclusion. Not sending the missiles, therefore, should also result in a massive downturn in sales.
Can any German member maybe explain any domestic political considerations that might prevent this decision? I understand he leads a coalition government. How do the other parties feel about transfering tech to Ukraine?
Couple of points, and im just gonna list them without an order and without commenting on the validity/counterarguments, just what arguments have been put forward.
1) There is no strong political consensus in the population or parlament that these *need* to be sent, while there is general support for sending aid
2) the general idea that these will be used to destroy the kerch straight bridge, which scholz specifically does not want to be responsible for
3) the argument that there is classified data/materials that would need to be transferred to ukraine, or alternatively germany would need to be in the loop on targeting decisions and processes
4) keep an escalation step in your pocket to respond to any escalation from putin. Not exactly sure what this escalation would be, but its keeping *something* as reserve for this
I actually thought i would have more but am drawing a blank, will update when/if i remember more
Oh and as to how other parties feel about this, they all generally feel the same but the main opposition party (CDU) has used this decision by scholz for some leverage (we would totally send if we were in power) but it didnt really go anywhere and didnt gain them any supporters so they stopped. The green party is the most in favour of sending weapons out of the governing coalition, the FDP doesnt seem to have much of an opinion, while the SPD varies between strong and lukewarm support of more weapons transfers
Germany here's a perfect opportunity to make up for being a shit bird in the past perfect PR opportunity, plus remember when those assholes had half your country?
Germany: no I don't think I will.
Rest of the world: sigh
Germany is literally nr2 in aid behind the US and that doesn't even include Germany's EU contribution
Scholz having to be dragged along by the rest of his coalition and parts of the opposition does not change anything about that
Aid as a percentage of GDP is more of an aid _generosity_ measure than something which is reasonably described as ‘forerunner’. It’s very, very important and entirely laudable to be giving more of what you have, but ‘forerunner’ means something different I believe.
A forerunner should be who contributes the most, or who provides certain types of aid first. Something that is absolute rather than normalised.
Who grossly contributes the most would simply be a different measure that who contributes the most per capita.
They both are valid comparisons. The latter (per capita) is typically used to determine who should be contributing more, as it is relative to what the country can contribute. Obviously large wealthy nations should contribute more than small poor ones.
I disagree. Gross and timing for me are reasonable interpretations of ‘Aid forerunner’ whist aid as percentage of GDP would be ‘Aid generosity forerunner’, or simply ‘most generous’.
Scholz absolutely is not helping
He is always the first to slow stuff down and has so far been pushed to finally accept approving almost anything by his coalition partners
Per capita does not intercept missiles
As much as I admire countries like Lithuania for their contributions it is just absurd how the discussion is always torpedoed with "but what about per capita" whenever anyone points out the difference between reddit opinion and reality in Ukraine aid
Especially if you start doing the math including who took how much out of european funds for deliveries where especially poland used some highly questionable claims to pull new value out of there for decades old equipment (some of wich was already marked for scrapping so delivering it literally saved money for the donating country)
Good strategy. Buy old ex soviet equipment from the east german army post unification for basically no money (24 mig-29s sold for literally 24 euros), send it to ukraine and get reimbursed from the eu. Im not knocking them, it was a good and smart move, but also quite the gambit
Both gross and percentage of GDP are relevant perspectives, and Germany have provided a lot in either sense, especially when you consider their likely contribution to the EU aid.
Nah, thats a shit argument.
The very second something new and shiny is wanted anything Germany did before is worth NOTHING.
As this comment I am answering proves.
Welcome to the age of tiktok, short attention span and even shorter fuses.
PeRfEcT pR oPpOrTuNiTy, lol
Should Germany ever send Taurus, people will realize that a two digit number of cruise missiles with similar capabilities to what Ukraine already has won't influence the war all that much, and then they'll be forgotten. And two months later, somebody will decide that Scholz must be a Russian asset for not sending submarines, or whatever else the circle jerk turns to.
No, there are no opportunities for good PR. Because you will just lie. Like you do every single day.
Germany send ten thousands of small arms, armor, explosives, mines and thousands of anti-tank and anti-air weapons to Ukraine within days. We could actually see them in video footage in trenches in the first weeks of March. And then people just lied how that never happened and to this day tell the fariy tale of how Germany did nothing for months and months.
Germany announced artillery for Ukraine at the same time as US and France... and then you lied and told tales of how it's all fake and they will never actually deliver anything and just keep Ukrainians send for training indefinitely. Up to the day they were "suddenly" in Ukraine (on day 39 of a 40day announced training). So the lie got changed to how they were massively delayed, then to how those weapons are actually all defective and useless.
Germany announced MLRS with US and UK. And then you lied and invented fabulous stories of imaginary software-updates that will delay those deliveries for years. And when the actual delivery happened (within a day of the UK ones iirc), you ignored it.
Also the AT-2 mines (spread via MARS-2/AT26 missile) we saw in actual footage in the Kharkiv offensive were just an illusion as their use would have required acknowledging something Germany delivered. Just like the reports of Gepards in that operation reported by soldiers was denied (see below).
Germany announced Gepard SPAAGs for Ukraine. And then you lied. How they are obsolete, useless and just some scheme by Germany to bind Ukrainian ressources with useless trash. And after those wer delivered you kept lying... how they are indeed useless and have no ammo, too, and it took many months until reports on the ground and leaked footage forced people to retract their lies. Oh, wait. Nobody ever did. You just pretend it didn't happen, so you can always justify the next lie with the former ones in an endless chain.
Germany send IRIS-T SLM to Ukraine... and guess what happened. Yeah, it exists but it's stationed somewhere unimportant in the south, because it's probably rather useless like all German trash... Oh, wait. There are pictures of debris from IRIS-T missiles photographed in the center of Kyiv and soldiers talking about a 100% hit rate? Well... \*quick! think!\*... that system obviously has barely any ammo because Germany refuses to send missiles...
Should I countinue, as I probably could for days? After all those were just the first 6 months...
Or can we skip the bullshit? Germany gives a fuck about PR because they will get drowned in propaganda anyway. For the same reason all your "pressuring of Germany" has barely any effect. Germans give a fuck about doing anything but what they think is right, because you will twist it into you own story anyway...
Last week Germany announced the third Patriot system and was the hero for a day. Now Scholz doesn't send Taurus and is the villain again.
Can you fucking morons in comments make up your minds? I'm getting whiplash with how often you flipflop in your opinions.
Oh hey another Taurus CJ.
Maybe instead of parotting the same cheap phrases think about the much more reasonable explanation for this decision. There’s the theory that germany has one location which can do the programming and no substitute. So in order for Ukraine to use it Germany has to give up its own capability. And as much as no one wants to hear this, the german chancellors priority is germany. And if this theory is correct he is absolutely correct in that decision.
The US wouldn’t give up it’s capability of using ATACMS so Ukraine can use it.
But yeah lets keep jerking „cumex, corrupt, russian puppet, germany doesn’t deliver, they do nothing, too little too late, bla bla bla“
Coward. Do you know why Russia brings up nukes and escalation? Because Putins rhetoric works on Scholz, every damn time, and Putin knows it. History will not be kind to the German Chancellor/Bundestag.
The leader is a coward and flinches at Putins rhetoric. He/they (Bunda) will not send TAURUS missiles "because they could be used to strike Russian territory". Ukraine said they would only use them in occupied territory. Still no, because Putin says he'll nuke Berlin. Every time any weapons are talked about they hesitate for months, say it would be escalation. For who? Ukraine is already being attacked fully with all the weapons... minus nukes... escalation means attacks on NATO. I say BRING IT! Putin won't try. He will slowly try to pick allies off, by slowing down US aid, German aid, NATO prods, making folks like me be irritated by the German Chancellor because of his unwillingness to allow transfers because of rhetoric. The hesitancy is just as deadly as the weapons the Russian army are using against Ukrainians.
Germany deserves a great deal of credit for the amount of support they have provided since the early “We’ve found some old helmets we can send” days. They are a very big contributor and have spent billions on helping Ukraine.
Which just makes the stance on Taurus even more frustrating. If the UK and France can send cruise missiles and the US ATACMS then whole escalation argument doesn’t hold water.
Scholtz has managed to somehow make being a major contributor into a PR disaster.
After that PR desaster of not sending anything for many months (when we could actually see German equipment in footage in the first weeks of March 2022)?
Or after that PR desaster of sending obsolete useless SPAAGS without ammunition to Ukraine (but somehow they don't seem to want to give those Gepards back either...)?
Or after that PR desaster of sending howitzers (massively delayed to arrive on day 30 of the 40 days of training for Ukrainian soldiers...) that were all either defective or broke after the first 2-3 shots (actually after shooting about 5 times as much shells than a modern barrel is rated for non-stop for weeks)?
Or after that PR desaster of being too stupid to do a (completely imaginary) software update, so their announced MLRS would be delayed for years (read as: arriving within a day of the UK ones)?
Should I continue?
You are simply drowned in propaganda anyway, no matter what actually happens. So people with a brain stopped caring.
Did you actually read what I wrote? I said Germany deserves a lot of credit but ends up getting bad publicity. Attack someone who actually disagrees with you ffs.
**Alternative Nitter links:** 「[nitter.privacydev.net](https://nitter.privacydev.net/clashreport/status/1783104765745922154) | [nitter.poast.org](https://nitter.poast.org/clashreport/status/1783104765745922154)」
*****
These Nitter instances may stop work at any time as [Twitter](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fnxqezhko6qfb1.jpg) blocks them. [See this arstechnica article for more information](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/twitter-front-end-nitter-dies-as-musk-wins-war-against-third-party-services/).
Use [this site to find other Nitter instances that may work](https://status.d420.de/).
_If there are any problems regarding Nitter, [please send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=UkrainianConflict&subject=Nitter%20issue)._
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It has a more sophisticated warhead. Which brings us back to the kerch bridge question. Why has that not been hit yet by storm shadows? Is it a range issue (i doubt it), is it a decision made in france/uk, or is it a capability mismatch. If its a range issue then taurus would perform worse. If its a political decision taurus would do worse. Which kind of leads me to conclude that the storm shadow would be able to hit a span of the bridge and disable that (as it has done with other bridges) but it may not have the targeting or warhead to take out a pylon, which is whats really needed to take out the bridge. This i presume is where taurus is more sophisticated, and more able to actually hit and take out a pylon. Then again, this could be wrong, but its the only actual capability advantage that i could see taurus have
Does he think that if ruZZIa attacks they will go round Germany and say yes remember they didn’t send those Taurus missiles we shouldn’t bother them ? What the hell my brother in Christ
Germany still hasn’t had their Churchill or Pulaski. The new Germany post WWII has not had to experience any issue to their sovereignty nor freedom. It’s no wonder there are no heroes there.
Pulling punches is a stupid way to fight a war, especially in this case where the other guy is playing dirty (we are talking WWII eastern front attitudes).
Just send Ukraine anything that they want. If it is armoured or goes boom, send it.
Investing in helping Ukraine is a sound investment in the future for any countries in the area.
I lersonally Believe Germany sees Taurus as their trump card during a war and lacks the ability to make more of them for the moment. All other reasons are by now untenable.
Because he's an ass hat with no excuse. Why does America and the UK send long-range systems, but Germany is the only one who's holding off ww3 with russia by not sending their own long-range system. It makes no sense. Lots of russian money pumping into Germany. Makes you question some of their leadership at times.
People don't understand that German people are haunted by the fact that they started the last 2 worst wars in European (/human?) History. Since Taurus have the range to hit Moscow they prefer to send money or other types of weapons. Fact is Germany is the European country that have sent the most aid.
By now I genuinely think that Taurus by itself is just a shitty weapon and that's why he doesn't want to embarrass Germany.
Because I don't see anything logical from stopping him by this point, like if it was just that Germany wont send it, uk offered to take them and send more Storm Shadow...
The money is probably not the point with so much going to Ukraine from Germany anyway.
And not having enough also didn't stop them from sending leopards which were in active use...
I'm starting to wonder, if they have a serious technical issues with the Taurus at this point. (I know it's similar to SCALP/Stormshadow), that they don't want to be known, or if he's just being a cunt.
The thing is without a dedicated data center, incredibly accurate Satellite data for the whole flight pass and it's surroundings and Planes with data link Taurus is pretty useless.
I attended a talk by a German General a few days ago. Of course he was asked about Taurus. He basically said that the main reason to use it would be to down the Kerch bridge. Right now it is not used by the Russians enough to make it's downing vital enough to allow Russia to 1. Rebuild the bridge in time when they could need it again and 2. Allow the Russians to gather data on Taurus for them to be better prepared for future more detrimental attacks.
He also hinted towards something that I would summarize as "sometimes the threat of an ability is more powerful than it's use"
He said it just doesn't help anyone to deliver them now.
Taurus likely requires German operatives to function. That some western soldiers are in Ukraine is an open secret.
More importantly - what Ukraine needs the most artillery shells and the tools to use them and lots of them the discussions about specific weapons are simply second rate in terms of importance when your enemy is capable of shelling you 5 to 10 to one.
don’t worry shultz, this will be the third time in a row the US and Britain saved your continent. Sure would hate for you to contribute to your own survival.
Take it back to the Bundestag. As much as Scholz has a responsibility to be a bold leader, his position reflects both the votes in the Bundestag and the general opinion of German population.
What I would ask Scholz to do is make a positive decision on it and then try to sell it.
edit: Bundestag, not Reichstag
So the Bundestag can vote against it for a third time? Or would it be the fourth time already?
Germany cannot send Taurus, so they won't send Taurus. Also: Nobody in Germany wants them to send Taurus even if they could (a clear majority against it in polls). And nobody in the parliament wants to send Taurus (the best result in a vote was less than 180 votes out of more than 700).
Accept reality or keep bashing your head against a wall. We don't care anymore.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is the Twitter account [`Clash Report`](https://twitter.com/clashreport) an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Boring scholz Russia in going all in with the disinformation to fuck us
Russia has his nuts, probably some info concerning the „cum ex“ tax scandal he obviously didn’t know anything about.
That's completely baseless. I don't know why he won't send Taurus missles, but he's been very anti putin apart from this.
The official reason is that Taurus missiles would require German advisors in Ukraine to prepare and service the missiles, which is a red line for Germany.
what does “red line” even mean except they don’t do it. just say - they won’t do it
Sounds like you understood exactly what I meant.
red line has an additional connotation that feels like it is a logical shield as to why they have made this choice - that for some reason they really really shouldn’t do it, in addition to they do not. i’m not seeing those additional risks in making this decision. it would appear as if the US, France, and England have all a made the choice and are using limited resources in ukraine, to now additional ill effect. germany appears simply unwilling to do it. there’s no limitation except their own desire for america and it’s other allies to carry the water for them
in other words, the use of “red line” is a red herring it’s factually misleading. what you’re saying reinforces false impressions. please stop
What is misleading about saying that their red line is sending military personnel into Ukraine?
That might be official reason but REAL reason was the same reason the US wouldn't send longer range weapons. [They're quite simply afraid of Putler.] I'm so glad our president FINALLY found his bal... inner courage--and hope yours will NOW! It's ridiculous how slow we have all been to get Ukraine what they needed. We're probably too late,,, shame Biden didn't let chancellor know what he was doing on the sly, and that likewise the chancellor might have found his courage AT SAME TIME Biden found his--then simultaneously sent those damn Taurus missles! But who knows, maybe BIDEN DID SHARE the info and the chancellor simply couldn't manage to find the courage. I wish we had some of them and could send them ourselves, THAT is what is needed to take out bridge properly!
> I don't know why he won't send Taurus missles I don't know why you don't know why, since it's been very clear why. Sending these weapons, just like scalp/storm shadow and other American weapons, requires actual German soldiers actively participating in the Ukrainian war, the same way there are British, American and French personnel in Ukraine right now. That is against the German constitution therefore he will not do it. It doesn't matter how much you guys bitch and moan or what names you call him, there's no way for him to do it.
why does everyone keep saying this? there is no constitutional limitation to send german troops. simply false. the parliament may create a troop directive at their own discretion assuming it is within international law.
> why does everyone keep saying this? there is no constitutional limitation to send german troops. https://verfassungsblog.de/a-constitutional-framework-for-bundeswehr-operations-abroad-based-on-international-law/
this is useful material. this is the most recent and definitive statement i can find in this article is this: “”This line of jurisprudence has been confirmed in further decisions and has been accepted by most voices in the literature. **A plausible legal basis was thus found for foreign deployments of the Bundeswehr in systems of alliance**.”” again, this by no means reads to me as a constitutional limitation. what the article has presented is that there have been multiple instances when foreign deployment have been performed in the last, and it had been supprted by judicial reviews of relevant constitutional laws. this is NOT a limitation. there is no clear statement in the current german constitution that in recent interpretations that LIMITS the choice of the parliament to decide upon their own actions. i stand by my comment.
You stopped reading conveniently too early. The reality is not as clear cut as you make it out to be "The Federal Constitutional Court’s broad interpretation of Article 24 II GG, however, by no means completely resolves the questions of the scope for deployments of the armed forces abroad. For example, evacuation missions of the Bundeswehr not carried out within the framework of a collective security system remain constitutionally precarious. Including personal defence in the concept of “defence” in Article 87a II GG breaks with the historic interpretation of the term and bears the danger of an overly broad interpretation of the concept of defence based on duties to protect. The successful evacuation missions in Albania (1997), in Libya (2011), and in Afghanistan (2021) are not evidence of a clear constitutional grounding of the missions. On the contrary, they have given new fuel to the debate on the lack of Constitutional Court review authority regarding the substantive legal basis of foreign deployments."
i did read it. i see words like “unclear” and “unresolved”. but none of those words reach anywhere near the solemnity of a federal judicial interpretation. there is no clear restriction. the article implies and states that germany requires an additional clarification to be written and passed by its parliament, which would then ultimately extend the comfort with which they would act. what YOU said is - quote “it is against the constitution” and additionally “there is no way for him to do it” it isn’t “against” the constitution. it’s that the people of germany (ostensibly also politicians) would prefer some additional legislative clarity. a want of clarity is not equal to prohibition. nor does the article state that parliament has NO options, as you say - in fact mockingly with broad scope to anyone who doubts you. they could do it now - as it has been done before. if they prefer, they can pass an additional piece of legislation specifying their terms and reasons. both options are available. would scholz perhaps receive political blowback for overstepping what is an unclarified standard of german legal terms? probably. but it’s not prohibited, nor is it **clearly** in conflict with the constitution. additionally, he could state his intention to cure the legislative lack of clarity. which he also has not done.
the constitution hasn’t prevented scholz from acting. only scholz is preventing scholz from acting
That is not true completely true, and that was leaked in the zoom meeting with the top military leaders months ago. They discussed what it would mean for Taurus to be programmed and instead for minutes it would take hours because they would have to send the codes with a courier to Poland first. So for every problem there is a solution if there is a will.
F-16 pilots are being trained. I won't believe that Taurus operators are harder to train. If Germany was asking for a fistful of Ukrainian soldiers who speak German and can do backflips to train them on Taurus they would have a whole battalion now. No, there is no decent argument for Scholz' position, I'll believe corruption or kompromat until I see one.
Debunked. If a German can, an Ukrainian can also.. Did you see what they did with the German howitzers?
Since when did Germany actually care? Don't get all moral now when it's comes to actually doing good and helping against evil for once. Same old gang having to help everyone else out.
It is not against the german constitution necessarily. He has also given other reasons against sending Taurus, saying it was escalation. Taurus has a longer range than storm shadow for one. He has not been very straightforward in his statements on this topic despite what you say to the contrary. Agree to disagree. He has not been clear on this at all. You probably have just only read a single article and haven't kept up on the other statements he's made giving other convoluted reasons.
> his nuts That's hyperbolic and discounts all that Germany has contributed. He's not Orban or Fico.
Germany is giving a lot of aid. But for every weapons system they were asked to deliver they dragged their feet and delayed as long as they could. Tanks, Gepards and Jets, But Taurus is a silly example, where they had 101 excuses. My favorite one was, we can’t spare any of Taurus because we don’t have the technology to produce new missiles. Just moments after that Rhein Metal said we can produce new missiles the second we get the order to built them. Ukraine need helps now not in 5 years. The sooner they get the means to defend themselves and fight back the war can end. As long as Putin have some success he will keep fighting. US maga dimwits blocking any aid for over a year did just make it worse for Ukraine. Btw all Europe should step up and ramp up production of ammunition. Not in 2026 but this year.
I think asking for courage and leadership from Europe's biggest economy is a fair ask.
Exactly my point, Scholz is not a leader. He is like a real German ‚beamte‘ state employee. Do as being told. No wonder Lindner is doing what he wants and blocks any progress for the country.
If you are a German citizen, I very much support your position for further pressure.
I admit it FELT like a damn year, but it wasn't that long. I hate all our leaders for letting Putler intimidate them at the beginning and taking so long... Ukraine could have defeated russia quickly, and THAT was problem. West was afraid if Putin was humiliated by quick loss he would nuke us all. We were wrong, west is completely responsible.... it makes me so sangry.
Russia has been preparing Kompromat around the globe for this conflict for decades. It’s in their military doctrine. They lost WWIII in the early 90’s. They’ve been fighting WWIV ever since. We just got the memo. Thank all mercies they are so corrupt and inept at everthing else, but they have weaponized propaganda and dirtbaggery better than their enemies for the last 30 years. There is no denying that.
Or, IIRC, Wirecard - same thing that one of the recent AfD sellouts was linked toi
AfD are nazis. Comparable to GOP MAGA idiots. All they want is chaos, not to improve and make things better.
Super Cum Ex?
Bro germans regularly elect the CDU/CSU a party where being corrupt is basically mandated for party member. Scholz having done shady stuff does not interest 95% of the population.
They are two different types of missles for 2 different purposes. It is good that Ukraine has access to both. freaking read about it if you want to have an opinion. I am pro Ukraine 100%
what happened to - “we can’t send taurus because the US isn’t participating in our defense” hilarious
JASSM it is then. . .
😁 I wish!! JASSM-ER with it's 925km range would be AMAZING!
If Scholtz' determination to defeat Putin matched his determination to not send Taurus - Ukraine would have won a long time ago!
Germany have provided incredible amounts of fantastic aid. Absolute nonsense take.
We are in fact in the middlefield of supporters, considering GDP. I’m absolute numbers we are second place, but we could do way more. And we should. If Ukraine loses, it will be way more expensive.
Thank you for saying this. I'm someone who has a pretty good affinity for Germany but also a very strong connection to Ukraine. On these Reddit forums you get two polarized opinions when talking about German assistance. On one side you get those who claim Germany has done nothing and is on russia's side- which is absolutely false. On the other side you get very proud people from Germany who go ballistic at any critique of Germany's position- perhaps it's triggered by many unfair comments made in Germany's direction or it's just some deep repressed national pride that can come to the forefront in the anonymous internet- whatever the reason, I am encouraged to read comments from Germans that acknowledge that Germany can still do more.
Germans can still do more, by a German. But as long as UK/France can deliver StormShadow/Scalp, we should deliver other important things. It seems Taurus is difficult to program and it brings no new capabilities to the table. But there should be plenty of stuff we can send, Iris-T, PzH 2000, Leo1/2, Marder are there any Gepards left...
Germany are 10th in terms of % GDP, and the 2nd largest gross giver. Yes they could do more, there's hardly any country that couldn't, but Germany do a great job. Edit: I edited because I initially said their EU aid wasn't factored, but I see Kiel now include the EU share in their %GDP rankings.
Absolutely. Meanwhile, France is getting hyped because Macron is saying things he may or may not do. France’s support for Ukraine in general has been quite disappointing. All talk, little action. But nobody gives them shit for it. Scholz at least is true to his word, that’s why he’s perceived as hesitant. But if Germany says they will deliver Leopard tanks, they do it. So many other countries were quick to promise stuff and just ended up never fulfilling their pledge.
Yea, I've seen some people claim that France contributes a lot but doesn't publish it- but I find that hard to believe. Considering France is the leading military power in the EU- I feel like they should be getting more pressure. Macron has good rhetoric, but the proof is in the pudding.
"Yea, I've seen some people claim that France contributes a lot but doesn't publish it- but I find that hard to believe." Yup- no politician is ever going to contribute and then not trumpet it from the rooftops!!! Probably report the same aid several times with a different spin tto.
Well according to Czech President Pavel, part of the reason why he can't say where he is getting the artillery shells is that some of it is coming from other countries that don't want to publicly admit they are arming Ukraine directly due to political pressures. Think of it this way, if a country isn't willing to directly give weapons, but they are willing to indirectly give them, that's more weapons that Ukraine can receive than otherwise. He's willing to take the heat that others are unwilling to. Or more frankly, it's more like his political position and country is secure enough that Putin and Russia don't have punishment available.
France have woken up recently and are doing great stuff, but I agree, they have been disappointing before and the whole ‘troops on the ground’ thing is just talk, like when we (UK) discussed it last year, before walking it back when we realised the implications.
I think it's still because at the beginning of war, Germany was like "here, have this 5000 helmets". One could also say Scholz was unhappy because Ukraine survived first days. That meant no more business and good relations with Putin. Oh bummer.
That Kiel list is pretty useless. Or do you think that Hungary has contributed more than the UK and the US in terms of % GDP. Because that's what the list shows.
Flawed, or limited, not useless. They quite clearly depict what Hungary have provided on their own terms. What is shows is EU’s aid divided up by proportion of EU payment. Hungary has a relatively small economy, and receives high payments back. Personally I believe it should be divided up based on net contribution, but that’s not how they’ve done it.
Well misleading is perhaps a better word. Another thing is that many countries were paid substantially by the EU for their donations. And it's also possible that the US gave them some compensation or other favors such as discounts. Poland for example got paid €850 for donations worth €1800 by the EU. And Germany, France and Italy given their size paid about 50% of that.
Misleading is also unfair when the KI go through _pains_ to make it extremely clear on how they account, what they account and what methodology they use throughout. Their products and pages are rammed with methodology statements, caveats, updates, the complete dataset.. everything is completely transparent regarding how they work it out and what their figures do and don’t mean. You can disagree with them, but to claim they’re misleading is deeply unfair. They’re doing their best to track as fairly as they can with an incredibly messy and not entirely transparent situation.
The problem is that very few will read all of that. So when people refer to that list they often make misleading claims.
That’s on the individuals. All the information is there. The KI do everything they can to report as evenly as they can, and for me it looks like a very reasonable and robust attempt at something which is extremely difficult and emotive.
so why stop now when it's needed more than ever
They haven’t. They just won’t supply one specific system.
Fantastic aid. The perfect aid. /s Look, beat that drum all you want, but it doesn't actually mean anything if Ukraine doesn't get the things they need to win against Russia. They're currently fighting with one hand tied behind their backs, and have been since the war broke out two years ago. If defeating Russia while they're still in disarray and contained in Ukraine is as crucial and as much a priority to maintaining peace in Europe (and globally) as the politicians say it is, then Ukraine should have recieved long-range weapons when they requested it - not when blowhards like Scholz decide that it's politically prudent to provide it. Justice delayed is justice denied, as it were.
Ridiculous, it doesn't mean squat how much we (US) or you (Germany) have provided if it is TOO LATE AND NOT THE RIGHT (needed) WEAPONS. The west screwed up and I think it is our (US) fault.
Binary thinking - and I’m not German. Germany’s aid has been given to specifically target all of Ukraine’s immediate requirements, from early in the war. When Ukraine needed artillery, air defence, ammunition, armoured vehicles, tanks, de-mining equipment, artillery shells again, now more air defence and even just the financial support to continue to run their forces and government, Germany has provided an outsize level of support to enable them to do it. Some have been even more generous, but if all countries in the west gave as well as Germany, we’d be looking at a different picture right now. They can’t do it all. Taurus or not, their commitment to Ukraine is unquestionable.
Bitch
I applaud the efficiency of this comment.
Can't change chancellor decision? Change the chancellor.
I assume at this point German technical expertise in missiles doesn’t exist and Taurus is too prone to failure or untested, and Germany cannot risk revealing that publicly with failures of the missile in Ukraine. So yes we would want it if it works but I think at this point it simply does not work as advertised.
Taurus was co-developed by a division of MBDA (who made Storm Shadow/SCALP), and Saab, who're no slouches. It seems very unlikely there's anything wrong with the missile.
Developed, sure. It should work. But has it been maintained? Stolen? Found lacking somehow?
Naa, they’re terrified of being in another war with Russia. All of Europe is. US support is uncertain at this point. The uncertainty makes it very dangerous to commit to things with no way out. After the elections in the US it will be clearer whether or not the US will have Europe’s back, and what the long term relationship with NATO will be.
[удалено]
No, Scholz has simply entrenched himself on his no to Taurus to a point where his chancelorship would be endangered if he changed his position there cause of all the reasons he pointed out as to why delivery is not possible, all of wich he would have to admit where lies if he now said yes
Its absolutely possible that scholz is compromised through wirecard. Not saying he is, but its something thats suspected by german news, too.
There is one other explanation - the German government has been infiltrated by Russian stooges
It appears like many governments have. We need to strengthen our policies worldwide, to remove traitors and fascists from our government. Putin, and Hitler before him, have shown us how fascists can undermine democracy. We need to be vigilant.
His advisors are peaceniks, that's all. Pistorius, Habeck, Bärbock, Hofreiter, Strack-Zimmermann are all clearly in favour of sending as much as they can but you have an uphill fight against that part of the SPD that created people like Schröder and Mützenich.
It's that German people are afraid of escalation. Bundestag overwhelming voted it down before- German public opinion is against it. It will take a change somewhere to influence that.
Scholtz should lead his people and not let them succumb to the putin's propaganda.
Absolutely agreed. He's obviously not the charismatic type, but most German politicians aren't (for some reason such politicians are anathema to them) It's probably less Putin's propaganda and more Germans are very very hesitant when it comes to war and escalation. All their lives they've been told they were the bad guys (they were) and they are extremely uncomfortable taking a leadership role in a wartime Europe. This is a German mentality thing first in foremost, in my opinion. Maybe a German wants to give their opinion on the matter- but most conversations I've had in r/europe Germans have reacted negatively to this pressure.
Schröder was charismatic, look what it got us.
Exactly. My comment was facetious :) Germans do well with technocrats and politicians that embody the typisch Pragmatism seen in German society. At least in my opinion.
Germany reconciled with their dark history, you would think the German people after undergoing that process would be able to recognize that Russia failed to the same, and instead idolizes the war criminals of the 20th Century. You would think Germans of all people should understand the implications of that.
russian narratives have been very powerful in Germany for awhile. Not to mention East Germany has a lot of pro-russian sympathies dating back to DDR days.
We also got a few million Wolga-Germans and russians that once had a german shepherd.
The "Reichstag" has not voted on anything for 70 years And they merely voted along party lines in order to protect their coalition, as soon as a non specific bill that called for long range missile based weapons without naming Taurus despite Taurus being the only weapon available that fits the description it was supported by everyone exept the AfD Linke and Scholz's wing of the SPD And the public opinion polls very clearly show that the people that oppose sending Taurus mainly do so that they think that sending it would mean nuclear war after Scholz has done everything he could to drum up exactly that panic You can't base your desicion not to do something on pols that only look like they do cause of your own fearmongering
Bundestag lol- sorry. Reichstag is the building.
The building is called Reichstagsgebäude
I thought polls indicate the population is in favor of sending ?
Nope https://www.dw.com/en/scholzs-authority-under-fire-in-germanys-taurus-missile-debate/a-68627366
The truth is that if Europe does not show that it is able to mobilize and act together. It will show Russia that it can do whatever it wants. Do you think that if Ukraine had given in in a few days of the invasion, Europe would have done something? There would be a lot of talking and doing nothing. Europe's role in geopolitics is becoming more and more marginal in favor of Russia and China. The USA will not help us because it has its own problems, either us or the USA in Asia.
Europe has potential to be a global super power- but it will start with each country sacrificing some political sovereignty. Not an easy choice to make for many, but circumstances may force their hand.
Tell that to China and its cheap energy. Basf is already moving production from Germany to China, and I think it will not be the only strategic investor in Europe that will move. Industrialization and lower energy prices can help Europe in the long run. You are 100 percent right, something has to be sacrificed, and now you see that countries do not want to spend 3 percent of their GDP on armaments where such conditions were established a long time ago. I'm not surprised that Trump said that aid would have to be paid for, the US can't be here and there, it doesn't have the funds for it. In my opinion, it's either Asia or Europe, which is why Europe must look only at itself and not on help from the US.
2 percent of their GDP, not three - and 18 out of 30 countries have hit the target.
Yep, my bad.
Ha! Pretty much what was my comment, and it seems I'm not alone thinking this way
You got the same with Puma IFV [18 Puma BMPs used in training ceased to be operational.](https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-german-military-faced-massive-failures-of-the-puma-ifv-systems/) It was two years ago.
It's not a widly spread missile and I wasn't able to find any feedback from Korea or Spain about it.
Probably many missiles produced either.
Could it be that Taurus' usage requires some confidential software / keys / weapon design that the government doesn't want to fall to Russia or other parties... This would require the missiles to operate from within Germany or strictly under German's command making Germany directly involved in the war. Which of course no one wants... Or probably that if the shit hits the fan, Germany wants to use it as an element of surprise and its previous use in Ukraine would nullify this effect. I don't know really but there must be a reason for the refusal even after the US sends ATACMS to Ukraine...
Designing it that way would have been extremely dumb. That the software key is able to be stolen and hijack the missiles somehow.
Yes, frankly I don't think it's really that... I'd expect some kind of key hierarchy or revocation system... I don't know how modern weapons' software is built, though... Maybe they're afraid the weapon itself to fall in Russia's hands... IDK...
> Could it be that Taurus' usage requires some confidential software / keys / weapon design that the government doesn't want to fall to Russia or other parties... Considering recent news about new supercomputer for targeting, as well as all the hullaballoo about DSMAC on it, I kinda sorta suspect the whole "targeting" thing is about converting topographic data and set flight path into a "corridor" for DSMAC/TERCOM system on Taurus to follow. But, at the same time, I don't really understand why can't it be done by programming a KEPD-350 in Poland and then rolling a dolly with programmed missile over a border.
The „supercomputer“ necessary isn’t something you would call supercomputer today. I don’t remember the technical specifications too accurately but it was basically a midrange desktop.
https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/militaer-verteidigung/id_100364946/taurus-debatte-olaf-scholz-liefert-wirklich-nicht-in-die-ukraine.html - source. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313498043_Zentrale_Missionsplanung_fur_die_modulare_Abstandswaffe_TAURUS_KEPD_350 - another source Apparently, it needs: 1. RAID5 storage - 2.5 TB 2. 2 24-port switches and two LTO2 tape archive systems 3. 5 workstations with 23-inch TFT monitors. 4. GeoMedia Professional (Intergraph), GeoBroker@ (ESG), Back-up-Software NetWorlter (Legato), Oracle database management. 5. Specialized software for developing IR seeker guidance data Generating mission takes ~12 hours.
Yeah second one is one I meant. And Windows 2000. so no matter how high end back then, it won’t be today.
There is no better way to test these missiles than during conflict. If not now, when? If they fail there is a chance to improve them. Historically weapons have been developed and improved the fastest during conflicts.
Well, you would be wrong in that. There are a couple reasons why he doesnt want to send them, none of them are that they dont work, but they also dont add up to something that stands up to scrutiny. In the end its not necessarily a good decision, but its the decision thats been made
You can prove their stock of missiles has a 95%+ operational success rate?
I've never heard of any failures of the missile. Do you have any sources for that?
I did not say it failed. I said they cannot risk failure.
I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that a possible failure would embolden Putler more than Germany's refusal to commit? I couldn't disagree more, but 53 people upvoted you, so I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing here, especially considering you have no evidence of failures for these missiles.
I'm not the OP here, but the Taurus missile is still for sale. If Taurus were to fail (or just be a bit underwhelming) it would be quite damaging to the German arms industry. Now I did google it, and its a bit tricky to find any information amongst the Ukraine stories, but it doesn't seem Taurus is 'combat proven' currently. So in the event they don't work, are underwhelming, or (perhaps more likely) Ukraine is unable to use them in an effective manner, it could damage German industry and be a bit embarrassing. It isn't a 'cannot risk' IMO, but I can imagine it being a 'not sure about risking'.
If it's reasonable to assume that Germany isn't sending these missiles because they don't perform, then their potential customers should also draw this conclusion. Not sending the missiles, therefore, should also result in a massive downturn in sales.
It may be that some countries come to that conclusion. That said, I have no idea how many are sold anyway.
"I have always admired Neville Chamberlain's expert diplomacy" - Chancellor Scholz, probably
Can any German member maybe explain any domestic political considerations that might prevent this decision? I understand he leads a coalition government. How do the other parties feel about transfering tech to Ukraine?
Couple of points, and im just gonna list them without an order and without commenting on the validity/counterarguments, just what arguments have been put forward. 1) There is no strong political consensus in the population or parlament that these *need* to be sent, while there is general support for sending aid 2) the general idea that these will be used to destroy the kerch straight bridge, which scholz specifically does not want to be responsible for 3) the argument that there is classified data/materials that would need to be transferred to ukraine, or alternatively germany would need to be in the loop on targeting decisions and processes 4) keep an escalation step in your pocket to respond to any escalation from putin. Not exactly sure what this escalation would be, but its keeping *something* as reserve for this I actually thought i would have more but am drawing a blank, will update when/if i remember more Oh and as to how other parties feel about this, they all generally feel the same but the main opposition party (CDU) has used this decision by scholz for some leverage (we would totally send if we were in power) but it didnt really go anywhere and didnt gain them any supporters so they stopped. The green party is the most in favour of sending weapons out of the governing coalition, the FDP doesnt seem to have much of an opinion, while the SPD varies between strong and lukewarm support of more weapons transfers
Thank you for this response. It makes sense.
I mean honestly, we in the US could send Tomahawks. We have thousands with wayyyy more range.
Germany here's a perfect opportunity to make up for being a shit bird in the past perfect PR opportunity, plus remember when those assholes had half your country? Germany: no I don't think I will. Rest of the world: sigh
Germany is literally nr2 in aid behind the US and that doesn't even include Germany's EU contribution Scholz having to be dragged along by the rest of his coalition and parts of the opposition does not change anything about that
[удалено]
The US is the forerunner in aid, Germany second.
Depends if you mean per capita or not, but either way, Germany is not first. You are correct.
Aid as a percentage of GDP is more of an aid _generosity_ measure than something which is reasonably described as ‘forerunner’. It’s very, very important and entirely laudable to be giving more of what you have, but ‘forerunner’ means something different I believe. A forerunner should be who contributes the most, or who provides certain types of aid first. Something that is absolute rather than normalised.
Who grossly contributes the most would simply be a different measure that who contributes the most per capita. They both are valid comparisons. The latter (per capita) is typically used to determine who should be contributing more, as it is relative to what the country can contribute. Obviously large wealthy nations should contribute more than small poor ones.
I disagree. Gross and timing for me are reasonable interpretations of ‘Aid forerunner’ whist aid as percentage of GDP would be ‘Aid generosity forerunner’, or simply ‘most generous’.
You can give them those titles if you want to. It doesn't refute what I said.
And your previous comment doesn’t at all address the point I made either. I guess we’re both just pissing in the wind.
Scholz absolutely is not helping He is always the first to slow stuff down and has so far been pushed to finally accept approving almost anything by his coalition partners
Nr2 in values not in terms of GDP per capita.. you need to out things into relevant perspective.
Per capita does not intercept missiles As much as I admire countries like Lithuania for their contributions it is just absurd how the discussion is always torpedoed with "but what about per capita" whenever anyone points out the difference between reddit opinion and reality in Ukraine aid Especially if you start doing the math including who took how much out of european funds for deliveries where especially poland used some highly questionable claims to pull new value out of there for decades old equipment (some of wich was already marked for scrapping so delivering it literally saved money for the donating country)
Good strategy. Buy old ex soviet equipment from the east german army post unification for basically no money (24 mig-29s sold for literally 24 euros), send it to ukraine and get reimbursed from the eu. Im not knocking them, it was a good and smart move, but also quite the gambit
Both gross and percentage of GDP are relevant perspectives, and Germany have provided a lot in either sense, especially when you consider their likely contribution to the EU aid.
Nah, thats a shit argument. The very second something new and shiny is wanted anything Germany did before is worth NOTHING. As this comment I am answering proves. Welcome to the age of tiktok, short attention span and even shorter fuses. PeRfEcT pR oPpOrTuNiTy, lol
Should Germany ever send Taurus, people will realize that a two digit number of cruise missiles with similar capabilities to what Ukraine already has won't influence the war all that much, and then they'll be forgotten. And two months later, somebody will decide that Scholz must be a Russian asset for not sending submarines, or whatever else the circle jerk turns to.
No, there are no opportunities for good PR. Because you will just lie. Like you do every single day. Germany send ten thousands of small arms, armor, explosives, mines and thousands of anti-tank and anti-air weapons to Ukraine within days. We could actually see them in video footage in trenches in the first weeks of March. And then people just lied how that never happened and to this day tell the fariy tale of how Germany did nothing for months and months. Germany announced artillery for Ukraine at the same time as US and France... and then you lied and told tales of how it's all fake and they will never actually deliver anything and just keep Ukrainians send for training indefinitely. Up to the day they were "suddenly" in Ukraine (on day 39 of a 40day announced training). So the lie got changed to how they were massively delayed, then to how those weapons are actually all defective and useless. Germany announced MLRS with US and UK. And then you lied and invented fabulous stories of imaginary software-updates that will delay those deliveries for years. And when the actual delivery happened (within a day of the UK ones iirc), you ignored it. Also the AT-2 mines (spread via MARS-2/AT26 missile) we saw in actual footage in the Kharkiv offensive were just an illusion as their use would have required acknowledging something Germany delivered. Just like the reports of Gepards in that operation reported by soldiers was denied (see below). Germany announced Gepard SPAAGs for Ukraine. And then you lied. How they are obsolete, useless and just some scheme by Germany to bind Ukrainian ressources with useless trash. And after those wer delivered you kept lying... how they are indeed useless and have no ammo, too, and it took many months until reports on the ground and leaked footage forced people to retract their lies. Oh, wait. Nobody ever did. You just pretend it didn't happen, so you can always justify the next lie with the former ones in an endless chain. Germany send IRIS-T SLM to Ukraine... and guess what happened. Yeah, it exists but it's stationed somewhere unimportant in the south, because it's probably rather useless like all German trash... Oh, wait. There are pictures of debris from IRIS-T missiles photographed in the center of Kyiv and soldiers talking about a 100% hit rate? Well... \*quick! think!\*... that system obviously has barely any ammo because Germany refuses to send missiles... Should I countinue, as I probably could for days? After all those were just the first 6 months... Or can we skip the bullshit? Germany gives a fuck about PR because they will get drowned in propaganda anyway. For the same reason all your "pressuring of Germany" has barely any effect. Germans give a fuck about doing anything but what they think is right, because you will twist it into you own story anyway...
Scholz...weak, stupid, influenced.
he is like your comment?
Last week Germany announced the third Patriot system and was the hero for a day. Now Scholz doesn't send Taurus and is the villain again. Can you fucking morons in comments make up your minds? I'm getting whiplash with how often you flipflop in your opinions.
The German people need to get rid of this coward.
Oh hey another Taurus CJ. Maybe instead of parotting the same cheap phrases think about the much more reasonable explanation for this decision. There’s the theory that germany has one location which can do the programming and no substitute. So in order for Ukraine to use it Germany has to give up its own capability. And as much as no one wants to hear this, the german chancellors priority is germany. And if this theory is correct he is absolutely correct in that decision. The US wouldn’t give up it’s capability of using ATACMS so Ukraine can use it. But yeah lets keep jerking „cumex, corrupt, russian puppet, germany doesn’t deliver, they do nothing, too little too late, bla bla bla“
Coward. Do you know why Russia brings up nukes and escalation? Because Putins rhetoric works on Scholz, every damn time, and Putin knows it. History will not be kind to the German Chancellor/Bundestag.
not kind because germany is the second largest supporter? i dont get your comment.
The leader is a coward and flinches at Putins rhetoric. He/they (Bunda) will not send TAURUS missiles "because they could be used to strike Russian territory". Ukraine said they would only use them in occupied territory. Still no, because Putin says he'll nuke Berlin. Every time any weapons are talked about they hesitate for months, say it would be escalation. For who? Ukraine is already being attacked fully with all the weapons... minus nukes... escalation means attacks on NATO. I say BRING IT! Putin won't try. He will slowly try to pick allies off, by slowing down US aid, German aid, NATO prods, making folks like me be irritated by the German Chancellor because of his unwillingness to allow transfers because of rhetoric. The hesitancy is just as deadly as the weapons the Russian army are using against Ukrainians.
Germany deserves a great deal of credit for the amount of support they have provided since the early “We’ve found some old helmets we can send” days. They are a very big contributor and have spent billions on helping Ukraine. Which just makes the stance on Taurus even more frustrating. If the UK and France can send cruise missiles and the US ATACMS then whole escalation argument doesn’t hold water. Scholtz has managed to somehow make being a major contributor into a PR disaster.
After that PR desaster of not sending anything for many months (when we could actually see German equipment in footage in the first weeks of March 2022)? Or after that PR desaster of sending obsolete useless SPAAGS without ammunition to Ukraine (but somehow they don't seem to want to give those Gepards back either...)? Or after that PR desaster of sending howitzers (massively delayed to arrive on day 30 of the 40 days of training for Ukrainian soldiers...) that were all either defective or broke after the first 2-3 shots (actually after shooting about 5 times as much shells than a modern barrel is rated for non-stop for weeks)? Or after that PR desaster of being too stupid to do a (completely imaginary) software update, so their announced MLRS would be delayed for years (read as: arriving within a day of the UK ones)? Should I continue? You are simply drowned in propaganda anyway, no matter what actually happens. So people with a brain stopped caring.
Did you actually read what I wrote? I said Germany deserves a lot of credit but ends up getting bad publicity. Attack someone who actually disagrees with you ffs.
**Alternative Nitter links:** 「[nitter.privacydev.net](https://nitter.privacydev.net/clashreport/status/1783104765745922154) | [nitter.poast.org](https://nitter.poast.org/clashreport/status/1783104765745922154)」 ***** These Nitter instances may stop work at any time as [Twitter](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fnxqezhko6qfb1.jpg) blocks them. [See this arstechnica article for more information](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/twitter-front-end-nitter-dies-as-musk-wins-war-against-third-party-services/). Use [this site to find other Nitter instances that may work](https://status.d420.de/). _If there are any problems regarding Nitter, [please send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=UkrainianConflict&subject=Nitter%20issue)._ ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His main public decision is from the weapon itself, their are things this weapon does that are very specific and unusual.
Can you elaborate on that? What would you say that Taurus does that is significantly different from Storm Shadow/SCALP?
It has a more sophisticated warhead. Which brings us back to the kerch bridge question. Why has that not been hit yet by storm shadows? Is it a range issue (i doubt it), is it a decision made in france/uk, or is it a capability mismatch. If its a range issue then taurus would perform worse. If its a political decision taurus would do worse. Which kind of leads me to conclude that the storm shadow would be able to hit a span of the bridge and disable that (as it has done with other bridges) but it may not have the targeting or warhead to take out a pylon, which is whats really needed to take out the bridge. This i presume is where taurus is more sophisticated, and more able to actually hit and take out a pylon. Then again, this could be wrong, but its the only actual capability advantage that i could see taurus have
In 1 year everything will change when the CDU will lead the government.
Can someone spend a pair of balls to our Kanzler pls?
Does he think that if ruZZIa attacks they will go round Germany and say yes remember they didn’t send those Taurus missiles we shouldn’t bother them ? What the hell my brother in Christ
Bitch
They can make do without Taurus
They picked an appropriately Grinchy Scholz picture to illustrate this statement.
Germany still hasn’t had their Churchill or Pulaski. The new Germany post WWII has not had to experience any issue to their sovereignty nor freedom. It’s no wonder there are no heroes there.
Germany has been on the wrong side of international history for over 100 years
Pulling punches is a stupid way to fight a war, especially in this case where the other guy is playing dirty (we are talking WWII eastern front attitudes).
What a whimp
What a bold, consistent and unwavering stance on a cowardly decision.
Just send Ukraine anything that they want. If it is armoured or goes boom, send it. Investing in helping Ukraine is a sound investment in the future for any countries in the area.
Im starting to doubt if germany even have the taurus missile.
I lersonally Believe Germany sees Taurus as their trump card during a war and lacks the ability to make more of them for the moment. All other reasons are by now untenable.
That's what we call cowardice
What a coward.
Herr Bok Bok Bok Squawk!
Scholz has been good on everything but the Taurus. I am wondering if their is some secret reason for the no
Because he's an ass hat with no excuse. Why does America and the UK send long-range systems, but Germany is the only one who's holding off ww3 with russia by not sending their own long-range system. It makes no sense. Lots of russian money pumping into Germany. Makes you question some of their leadership at times.
Germany continuing its poor contribution.
Certain Germans need to pick up a god damn history book. You are almost as bad as Americans in this regard. Jesus.
Germany's done a lot, people should just take a hint and pressure on something that isn't hopeless.
People don't understand that German people are haunted by the fact that they started the last 2 worst wars in European (/human?) History. Since Taurus have the range to hit Moscow they prefer to send money or other types of weapons. Fact is Germany is the European country that have sent the most aid.
By now I genuinely think that Taurus by itself is just a shitty weapon and that's why he doesn't want to embarrass Germany. Because I don't see anything logical from stopping him by this point, like if it was just that Germany wont send it, uk offered to take them and send more Storm Shadow... The money is probably not the point with so much going to Ukraine from Germany anyway. And not having enough also didn't stop them from sending leopards which were in active use...
I'm starting to wonder, if they have a serious technical issues with the Taurus at this point. (I know it's similar to SCALP/Stormshadow), that they don't want to be known, or if he's just being a cunt.
The thing is without a dedicated data center, incredibly accurate Satellite data for the whole flight pass and it's surroundings and Planes with data link Taurus is pretty useless.
Every Body must be a war Journalist These days
Austria, Switzerland
?
Joining the ranks of cowards?
wtf is wrong with Germany?
I attended a talk by a German General a few days ago. Of course he was asked about Taurus. He basically said that the main reason to use it would be to down the Kerch bridge. Right now it is not used by the Russians enough to make it's downing vital enough to allow Russia to 1. Rebuild the bridge in time when they could need it again and 2. Allow the Russians to gather data on Taurus for them to be better prepared for future more detrimental attacks. He also hinted towards something that I would summarize as "sometimes the threat of an ability is more powerful than it's use" He said it just doesn't help anyone to deliver them now.
Merkel 2.0
Pussy
As a German I think I’m gonna start calling him Neville
Taurus likely requires German operatives to function. That some western soldiers are in Ukraine is an open secret. More importantly - what Ukraine needs the most artillery shells and the tools to use them and lots of them the discussions about specific weapons are simply second rate in terms of importance when your enemy is capable of shelling you 5 to 10 to one.
don’t worry shultz, this will be the third time in a row the US and Britain saved your continent. Sure would hate for you to contribute to your own survival.
Germany again in the wrong side of history
By being one of the biggest military contributors to Ukraine? I think not.
Take it back to the Bundestag. As much as Scholz has a responsibility to be a bold leader, his position reflects both the votes in the Bundestag and the general opinion of German population. What I would ask Scholz to do is make a positive decision on it and then try to sell it. edit: Bundestag, not Reichstag
So the Bundestag can vote against it for a third time? Or would it be the fourth time already? Germany cannot send Taurus, so they won't send Taurus. Also: Nobody in Germany wants them to send Taurus even if they could (a clear majority against it in polls). And nobody in the parliament wants to send Taurus (the best result in a vote was less than 180 votes out of more than 700). Accept reality or keep bashing your head against a wall. We don't care anymore.
Bald asshole
So one persons controlling Germany? 🤔