I don't know how intensively you followed the news, but regarding the Taurus rejection, there was also a big reveal regarding the French and British cruise missiles: It's those two countries themselves who deliver the target coordinates and they have people in Ukraine programming the cruise missile targets before launch. I don't think this was ever mentioned before, when the topic was the SCALP/Storm Shadow. But that's seems to be the problem that Germany cannot legally follow.

Translated with DeepL (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/news-des-tages-olaf-scholz-und-taurus-marschflugkoerper-angriffssoftware-predator-afd-chef-tino-chrupalla-a-a57b3057-f182-4b4e-ab3a-ad550d52348f):

"According to the report, Great Britain and France directly contribute the geodata for the attack targets themselves and are also involved with their own personnel."

"Literally, the chancellor told the committee that other nations could do something "that we are not allowed to do." Many deputies understood from the implication that Scholz was referring to needed German help in programming the weapons systems. London and Paris, he said, were much more relaxed on this issue."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (6 children)

Interessting. However reading the original article doesn't say anything about a legal issue.

The chancellor basically says that "we're not allowed" to provide direct offensive assistence because of our duty to German history.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The next sentence with the assumption regarding the German history is made by the article author and not part of Scholz quote.

I understand 'we're not allowed' completely in a legal way, otherwise he would probably use different and more ambiguous wording.

It's just a new thing to me and I never read before that Great Britain and France are directly involved with their cruise missile programming. Germany would have to send troops into the war to program Russian targets and 'we're not allowed'. But I'm no lawyer, so I cannot comment what kind of law this would or could break.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I understand ‘we’re not allowed’ completely in a legal way, otherwise he would probably use different and more ambiguous wording.

"Wir dürfen nicht" is very much an ambigous wording in the orignal German. Definitly doesn't imply that there is a legal issue.

And it seems there isn't. In fact, the main legal point here seems to be if providing the weapon can be done by the government or requires a vote from parliament. And it seems it wouldn't even require the vote.

This article goes into details behind the decision. (written by lawyer)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)