[Skybird]

When the "traffic light coaltion" cam einto office I said it is absolkutely possible that it might not last the full term. When the Ukraine war broke out I said it might not even last until the end of this year. In both cases I indicated that the key problem is Scholz himself, and poiitned to his pltlical records sinc ehis desastrous tiem as mayor of Huam,burg. This man shoud, nave rhave been allwoed to become chancellor. He is arrogant while cowardly, incompetent while absolutely full of himself.

Focus writes:

It's Friday the 13th, and the first coalition wrangling is taking place in the traffic light alliance. But it's only superficially about individual issues. In fact, distrust of the chancellor is growing. And that just two days before the important state elections in Germany's most populous state. Things are getting dicey for Olaf Scholz.

This Friday, the defense committee will discuss the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine - and the suspicion, expressed not only by the arms industry, that the chancellor and his office are delaying these arms deliveries. And this with the argument that Germany must always move in the West's convoy. No "German Sonderweg," the chancellor says in this regard.

But this principle of the chancellor's turns the small question into a big one in terms of state policy. The question is: Should Germany assume a leading role in the Western alliance? That's what the Greens and liberals expect of him. But Scholz doesn't want to. And Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), the chairwoman of the defense committee and therefore hard to ignore as Scholz's liberal tormentor, has a reason, which she dresses up in a very, very nasty sentence.

The "NZZ" asked Strack-Zimmermann about Scholz's leadership qualities. The question is absolutely legitimate, because Scholz has claimed this leadership for himself not only once. Scholz even claims to be the mastermind for a Western strategy on Ukraine. To this now the tomboyish, to Scholz's chagrin, but above all independent and therefore hardly to be disciplined parliamentarian:

"I would be happy if we at least marched in step with our partners (the word "march" is likely to bring a blush of anger to the faces of many Social Democrats) and did not give the impression that the Germans always have to be persuaded to act first." But the liberal in the Germany-critical liberal paper did not leave it at that. Leadership?

"The chancellor needs a pretty broad back for that, should he ever want to fill this role." The subjunctive irrealis means that from Strack-Zimmermann's point of view, Scholz is not leading. An opinion that is shared by at least Toni Hofreiter among the Greens, an equally independent since he did not become a minister.

It is the combination of unfulfilled leadership role, arrogance and lack of respect for freely elected parliamentarians that led to the discharge today among liberals. Not for the first time. On 24 April Strack Zimmermann had already dealt with the leadership qualities of the chancellor.

A country as big as Germany in a crisis as big as the one over Ukraine would have to lead. And this leadership would have to come from Olaf Scholz - "not only economically, but also militarily." And then, "And for those who don't want to accept this role, I say, then they may be sitting in the wrong place at the wrong moment." Now, this does not mean that the whole coalition is in the toilet.

What is already to be recognized by the fact that Strack-Zimmermann as well as the defense-policy FDP spokesman Marcus Faber distribute even currently after the meeting of the defense committee sedatives. One could clarify, which remained open, surely in a next meeting. However, this presupposes that Olaf Scholz will also accept a second "invitation".

The need for clarification that the members of the defense committee have arises from two kinds of decisions - those that have been made but are difficult to explain, and those that have not yet been made, which is equally difficult to explain. Scholz's government has promised to supply Ukraine with Gepard tanks. But that will take time. Was this "will take time" intentional? [You bet it was!, Skybird]

Marder and Leopard 1 tanks have not been delivered because the Federal Security Council has not yet decided on them, although Scholz promised that it would not take that long. But apparently it does.

Let's move up a level. The CDU/CSU, the Greens and the FDP are largely in agreement on security policy issues. More so than the SPD, the Greens and the FDP. Among the Social Democrats, phantom pains are still widespread. Many there cling to a notion of pacifism that the Greens have overcome at record speed.

A Jamaica coalition could replace a traffic light government immediately and without new elections. That would be very unusual, but it is not impossible. Who would have believed three months ago that Greens would justify arms deliveries with love of peace ?

Finally, the North Rhine-Westphalia elections this Sunday. There, it smells like black-green, and for several reasons. Perhaps the most important: The Greens know the SPD. And they have had to put up with this arrogant coalition partner for three minister presidents.


It started back then with Johannes Rau, a man who was actually affable, drank Pilsner and smoked HB cigarettes. But he thought the Greens were an accident of history. And from the Social Democrat a nice bon mot has been saying for decades:

"Better a cottage house in the green than a green in the house."
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)