Opinion / Christopher Cermak
Benign intervention
Olaf Scholz, Germany’s new chancellor, has long been known as someone with little regard for the 24-hour news cycle. Rather than being the first to be heard, he prefers to work behind the scenes and gather all the facts before taking a public position. It’s a laudable characteristic but not necessarily one suited to heads of government, who often need to make split-second decisions without all of the facts at hand. And in the case of Ukraine, Scholz’s patient approach has been taken to an extreme.
In theory, it could prove to be a masterstroke of diplomacy: the German chancellor visited Kyiv yesterday and is in Moscow today, just as talk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine reaches a fever pitch. If war is avoided this week, Scholz (pictured, on left, with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky) could reap the benefits of delaying his intervention – even as so many other world leaders have stepped into the void over the past two weeks. The trouble, however, is that frustration with Germany has become well-entrenched in his absence: people I spoke to in Kyiv had little understanding for Germany’s refusal to provide even defensive weapons to Ukraine – and don’t get them started on the Nordstream 2 pipeline.
German officials will readily retort that they have provided more financial support to Ukraine than any other nation over the past eight years. But what good is money for rebuilding when your country faces the threat of an actual military invasion? During his visit, Scholz has promised more of the same: additional financial aid but no defensive weaponry (though they’ll consider night-vision goggles). And he hasn’t come bearing a particularly novel diplomatic approach. Leaders who trade in nuance are all too rare in politics these days but Vladimir Putin requires a different kind of treatment.