Inside private channels, the head of Germany’s Foreign Office, Annalena Baerbock, is nudging Chancellor Olaf Scholz to consider a pathway that would allow Taurus cruise missiles to reach Ukraine. A major weekly outlet, Spiegel, outlines the evolving dynamic and the attempts to shift Scholz’s position on the matter, underscoring how the diplomatic push remains largely discreet while the public debate concentrates on broader strategic risks.
Spiegel portrays Baerbock as ready to apply political pressure from within the government, leveraging conversations with colleagues and influential circles to build momentum for a policy shift. Scholz, however, has consistently expressed caution about a shipment at this juncture, emphasizing the need for careful timing and a clear assessment of consequences before any decision is made. The reported tension reflects a broader disagreement within the ruling coalition about how to balance deterrence, alliance solidarity, and the potential for unintended escalations.
According to the report, Baerbock has kept her stance largely out of the public eye for months, preferring to pursue a quiet approach aimed at persuading Scholz through private discussions and expert assessments rather than public declarations. The strategy hinges on presenting a comprehensive argument that connects military support to Ukraine with European security interests, while also addressing domestic political sensitivities and public opinion that could influence the chancellor’s calculus.
People close to Baerbock suggest that a plausible explanation to German citizens about the security implications of a Ukrainian battlefield outcome could affect how both the public and political stakeholders view the transfer of Taurus missiles. The idea is to frame the decision as one rooted in long-term European stability, rather than a hurried or reactionary move in response to the immediate war dynamics, thereby seeking to align domestic sentiment with alliance commitments.
Despite ongoing high-level conversations, the report notes that Scholz has not yet been swayed. The chancellor remains concerned about the potential for escalation, particularly if the missiles were seen as crossing a threshold that could provoke a broader confrontation with Russia or complicate diplomatic efforts aimed at de-escalation. In this light, any decision would require a carefully calibrated message to both international partners and German voters about the precise purpose and limits of such arms assistance.
Earlier discussions highlighted similar worries: approving Taurus missile deliveries could be interpreted as an assertion of intensified military involvement, possibly altering the risk calculus for Moscow or prompting retaliatory moves elsewhere in Europe. German policymakers have long weighed the balance between reinforcing Ukraine’s defenses and guarding against a spiral that might widen the conflict beyond its current scope, with Berlin seeking to maintain strategic room for negotiation while preserving allied unity.
The Bundestag has already examined the framework that would govern any potential Taurus missile provision, though the brief does not indicate a formal decision. The legislative forum remains a key arena where the political leadership must articulate a coherent justification, address parliamentary questions, and secure the necessary consensus before any concrete steps are taken. In this environment, the exchange of views between Baerbock, Scholz, and their parliamentary colleagues continues to shape the trajectory of Germany’s security posture in the region and its role within NATO.