By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Pressure is mounting on German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to deliver Taurus long-range missiles to Ukraine, following his announcement lifting range restrictions on weapons supplied to Ukraine. Prominent CDU/CSU members, including Kiesewetter and Röwekamp, advocate for both missile delivery and training Ukrainian personnel to use them, arguing this would significantly aid Ukraine’s defense. However, critics like Hofreiter and Düring claim Merz’s statement is insufficient without concrete action, accusing him of inaction and criticizing the SPD’s hesitancy. The debate highlights a significant rift within the German government regarding further military aid to Ukraine.
Read the original article here
German politicians are increasingly urging Chancellor Merz to approve the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine. This pressure stems from a recognition that providing Ukraine with longer-range precision strike capabilities could significantly alter the dynamics of the conflict. The argument centers around the potential impact on Russian military infrastructure and logistics, far beyond the current front lines.
The potential for disrupting Russian supply lines is a key selling point for proponents of the Taurus missile delivery. By targeting key infrastructure like ammunition dumps, logistics hubs, and command centers, Ukraine could potentially cripple Russian military operations, even if the number of missiles delivered is relatively small. The experience with HIMARS and other long-range precision systems suggests that even a limited number of strikes can cause disproportionate damage.
Concerns exist regarding the production capacity of Taurus missiles. Some argue that Germany’s manufacturing capacity is insufficient to make a substantial difference, and that sending a limited number would be a symbolic gesture rather than a game-changer. However, the counter-argument highlights that even a small number of Taurus missiles would extend Ukraine’s strike range, forcing Russia to relocate crucial supply depots and infrastructure further back from the front lines, thus significantly straining their already stretched logistics network.
This logistical strain would translate into increased transportation costs, longer resupply times, and increased vulnerability for Russian forces. The need for more trucks, fuel, drivers, and maintenance would further burden the Russian war effort, potentially offsetting the limited supply of Taurus missiles. The disruption caused by longer resupply lines would disrupt the flow of essential supplies like ammunition, spare parts, and equipment, weakening the Russian military’s capability.
A counter-argument frequently raised is the risk of Russia identifying the missiles as German-made through recovered components. This concern focuses on the potential political repercussions if Germany’s involvement in the conflict becomes undeniably clear, potentially escalating the conflict. Solutions like removing all identifying markings are being considered to mitigate this risk, emphasizing the need for plausible deniability. The aim is to maximize the impact of the missiles while minimizing the risk of unintended escalation.
Despite these practical concerns, the call for Taurus missile deliveries is driven by the strategic benefit. Proponents believe that the potential disruption to Russian logistics and military operations outweighs the production limitations and political risks. The belief is that even a modest number of Taurus missiles, utilized strategically, could produce a tangible impact on the battlefield, thereby tipping the scales of the conflict in Ukraine’s favor.
The debate also highlights the political complexities surrounding the decision. While many politicians advocate for the missile delivery, dissenting voices caution against escalation and highlight the limitations of German production capacity. This internal disagreement highlights the delicate balancing act between supporting Ukraine and managing the potential consequences of providing advanced weaponry.
Ultimately, the decision regarding Taurus missile deliveries remains a complex one, weighed against factors such as production capacity, political risks, and the potential strategic benefits. The ongoing debate within the German political landscape underscores the significance of this decision and its far-reaching implications for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The pressure on Chancellor Merz reflects the growing belief among many politicians that providing these missiles is the most effective way to support Ukraine while carefully managing the potential risks.