When Politicians Become Statesmen

In both cases, Germany had a Social Democratic chancellor. Helmut Schmidt led while the country was on the front line of the Cold War. Now, Olaf Scholz works to stop Russian aggression and avert future threats to Europe.

Schmidt’s (West) Germany was defended by its own military forces, supplemented by tens of thousands of American, British, and French (and a contingent of Canadian) troops stationed nationwide. The flare-up at that time concerned the stationing of an increasing number of Soviet nuclear-tipped, middle-range weapons in Eastern Europe. Their deployment was meant to enhance Kremlin influence in Western Europe, especially in West Germany. 

Schmidt identified the danger and pressed NATO—meaning primarily the United States—to respond. His success resulted in the “double-track” strategy, which demanded Moscow halt its missile deployment or NATO would proceed with its own. 

That plan generated a fierce public backlash throughout West Germany in the form of huge demonstrations. Many of Schmidt’s Social Democratic colleagues joined the movement, arguing that the strategy made nuclear war more likely. Leading party figures, including former Chancellor Willy Brandt, supported the critics. 

Schmidt held firm to his position, and the NATO deployment went ahead after he was replaced by Christian Democrat Helmut Kohl and Moscow refused to back down. Less than a decade later, the Cold War ended, Germany was reunited, and the Soviet Union disappeared. 

Scholz, for his part, famously declared a “Zeitenwende” (turning point) after Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since then, he has led Germany to become the largest European source of military and non-military support to Ukraine, often declaring that the country must not lose the war—and Russia not win it. 

Ukraine is nevertheless now in danger of losing as critical US military assistance shrinks. Scholz is under pressure to supplement German support by offering Taurus missiles, but refuses to do so, apparently believing it might cross a red line in Moscow. His view is fed by threats from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Scholz argues that Germany, and NATO, should not become a party to the war (“Kriegspartei”) even though Berlin has been supplying multiple arrays of weapons of increasing capacity and lethality to Ukraine since the outbreak of conflict. While most Germans continue to support Ukraine, the chancellor is also aware that a majority also agree with his stance on withholding Taurus. The dilemma of balancing public opinion against the demands of European security also confronted Schmidt.

More than 40 years earlier, Schmidt was also well aware that proposing to deploy more nuclear weapons could heighten tensions with Moscow. Still, he believed that the move was necessary to deter Soviet intimidation efforts. He called on NATO for help not only because Germany’s security was at stake but also all of Europe’s. 

Today’s version of that dilemma confronts Scholz, but he seems to see limits to deterrence even if the stakes are as high today as they were then and even if no preparatory measures have followed Putin’s wild threats of using nuclear weapons. The Russian leader has also, unsurprisingly, said he has no interest in negotiations. Why would he? Ukraine is running out of weapons, and that is, in large part, the United States’ fault. But Scholz’s unwillingness to step up also fuels Putin’s confidence. 

While the German peace movement criticized Schmidt for escalating the likelihood of war, Scholz appears to be the source of that fear today. He has not shared publicly, or even with partners in his coalition government, any reasons for his fear. NATO allies France and the United Kingdom do not share it, and they are supplying Ukraine with weapons similar to the Taurus. Does Scholz know something that the French and the British do not? 

Schmidt called the Kremlin’s bluff. Scholz appears to be unwilling to do the same. Is this because he has concluded—as have other countries—that he can no longer rely on the United States to guarantee German and European security? 

If that is the case, then it is even more important for Germany to shoulder its historical responsibility and rise to the occasion. This is not the time to bend to the winds of domestic politics, rehearse old peace songs, and ignore history’s lessons. It is the time to show fortitude, defend what must be defended, and squarely confront aggression. This is this time to shape Europe’s future and for politicians to become stateswomen and statesmen. Will Scholz become one?

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger is former foreign editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.