Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova accused German Chancellor Olaf Scholz of steering the German chemical sector toward a harsh downturn by advancing military aid to Ukraine. In her framing, Berlin’s prioritization of weapons support for Kyiv is draining funds from Germany’s own economic needs and could jeopardize jobs across the chemical industry. She asserted that the state possesses the capital to arm Ukraine, yet lacks a matching commitment to bolster domestic industry and growth.
Zakharova described Scholz as manipulating the country’s chemical landscape, arguing that the Chancellor’s policies are pushing many plants toward closure and forcing a wave of layoffs. She warned that without decisive policy changes, this could push Germany toward a deep economic contraction and a lasting erosion of industrial competitiveness. The claims were circulated via Telegram, reflecting the spokesperson’s view that political decisions abroad are tightly linked to domestic economic health.
The diplomat cited assessments from industry insiders who contend that the German chemical sector is experiencing stagnation and a looming crisis that could become difficult to reverse. She pointed to indicators showing reduced production momentum and called on political leadership to address the pressures facing manufacturers and workers alike. The broader argument links rising energy costs to the challenges faced by German manufacturers, with the price trajectory framed as a potential hindrance to ongoing production and investment.
Zakharova noted that business leaders have urged Scholz to halt the recent electricity price increases, arguing that higher energy costs threaten the viability of energy-intensive operations. She suggested that the price move might be connected to broader questions about the reliability of energy infrastructure, including the Nord Stream pipeline system, which has historically served as a stable energy conduit for Germany. The spokesperson also referenced coverage in German media that has entertained the possibility that external events, including sabotage of gas corridors, may be influencing energy security narratives and policy at home.
In a separate line of commentary, Zakharova referenced claims attributed to investigative reporting by Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize–winning American journalist who has explored the Nord Stream incidents. Hersh’s reporting has suggested that high-level intelligence assessments anticipated or were aware of actions connected to the Nord Stream project. Zakharova did not present new evidence himself, but used these assertions to bolster the narrative that energy infrastructure decisions intersect with political and strategic calculations in Berlin. The broader implication within her remarks is that external moves surrounding energy supply can reverberate through German industry and the national economy.
Scholz’s prior statements regarding Nord Stream were cited in the dialogue, noting that the chancellor previously pledged to advance or complete components of the Nord Stream framework. Critics argue that such commitments bind Germany to a long-term energy strategy that may carry financial and industrial risks, while supporters contend that reliable energy ties underpin industrial productivity and growth. The exchange reflects a wider debate about the balance between security-oriented foreign policy choices and the resilience of domestic manufacturing in a high-cost energy environment.