USA and Germany: “Great irritation, but no break”

The dispute over the delivery of “Leopard” tanks has left its mark on German-American relations, says security expert Liana Fix. However, the impression that Germany does not want to take on a leadership role is stronger.

tagesschau.de: Has the debate about the delivery of “Leopard 2” main battle tanks left its mark on German-American relations?

Liana Fix: The US administration has shown a lot of patience towards the federal government and the German turning point in recent months – in contrast to other European partners, who have demanded more and faster decisions from Germany in support of Ukraine.

Washington has always been careful not to exert excessive pressure out of concern that this could jeopardize the success of the turning point – knowing full well that the population must also be taken along and that the turning point represents a major change for German politics.

Because there was so much patience, the anger is now particularly great, as the impression has been created that Germany does not make the decision about the delivery of “Leopard” tanks for itself and is responsible for it.

Rather, Germany blames the US by linking the “Abrams” M1″ and “Leopard” tanks, thereby pressuring the US – even though it is the US that has provided the most support for Ukraine since afford at the beginning of the war.

Junktim “no news”

tagesschau.de: However, there are still differing accounts of this Junktim. The new Defense Minister Boris Pistorius announced on Thursday evening in focus said he knew nothing of this Junktim. However, the German and US media continue to talk about it. Which representation do you think is correct?

Fix: In Washington, there has long been talk of Germany making a connection between “Abrams” and “Leopard”. This is nothing new. And that this German demand for a connection has become public and has thus put pressure on the USA, although from the USA’s point of view the delivery of main battle tanks is a decision that Germany should make for itself, caused great astonishment.

“No Strategic Break”

tagesschau.de: How long-lasting is the damage that has been caused here?

Fix: There is great irritation in German-American relations. But that does not mean a lasting rift and also no break in joint action in the war against Ukraine.

Despite all this, the Ramstein meeting produced very positive results and a large package of support for Ukraine. Despite all the differences – this is not a strategic break, Germany and the USA are still on the same side.

“Germany is perceived as difficult”

tagesschau.de: Part of the criticism of Germany is that the federal government, and especially Chancellor Olaf Scholz, has a communication problem and does not properly explain his or her policies. Is that also the perception in the USA?

Fix: Germany and the communication of the federal government is perceived as difficult. The biggest communication problem was the question of whether the outstanding German decision on “Leopard” deliveries only applies to Germany itself, or whether Germany has also blocked other partners. Clarity on this question, which deliveries Germany agrees to and which it needs more time for, was missing in advance and is still missing.

And the clarity in communication, where Germany agrees and where more time is needed, was missing in advance and is still missing.

“Domestic disagreements confuse”

tagesschau.de: Does Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s statement that she has nothing against deliveries of “Leopard” tanks from other countries help?

Fix: Here, too, there is complete ambiguity among Germany’s partners as to whether the Foreign Minister is speaking for herself or for the entire government. The internal political discrepancies in Germany will be perceived as confusing from the outside. It is important that the government speaks with one voice on such crucial issues.

“German contribution fades into the background”

tagesschau.de: Germany has now made the second-largest contribution to Ukraine aid after the United States. Doesn’t that soften the criticism of Germany?

Fix: The USA takes this into account. You have always appreciated this contribution and also defended it against criticism. But if the US actually has to deliver “Abrams” tanks first so that Germany can deliver “Leopard” tanks, that also reduces the budget that the Americans have at their disposal.

The government passed a $47 billion budget for Ukraine before the majority in the House of Representatives moved to the Republicans. If they have to use it to finance the expensive “Abrams” tanks, that limits the scope for supplying other much-needed weapon systems and ammunition.

The tragedy of Germany’s behavior is that the substantial German contribution to Ukraine on the subject of the “leopard” fades into the background – also due to the bad communication of the federal government. It is almost forgotten that only two weeks ago Germany promised light tanks, the so-called Marders.

“Not Ready to Lead”

tagesschau.de: Is the debate about the “Leopard” tanks also a subliminal debate about how much Europe should be responsible for its own security in the future?

Fix: The federal government has not managed to direct the discussion about “Leopard” tanks in a coordinated way and to assume a leading role within the European Union. And that is perhaps the biggest criticism.

Germany’s contributions to Ukraine are remarkable. But these contributions do not translate into a leadership role in Europe; at most, Germany would like to lead from the middle of the alliance or from behind. That doesn’t work and is a disappointment for the European partners and the USA, because they not only hoped for a reliable ally with the turning point, but also for a country that was prepared to assume a leadership role. That is clearly not the case with Germany when it comes to tanks.

“Oversized load is seen as a problem in Washington”

tagesschau.de: Does the action of the federal government show that Germany is not yet in a position to assume more responsibility beyond the Ukraine crisis – for example towards China?

Fix: This debate about burden-sharing in the alliance is being conducted intensively in Washington. Is the USA overextending itself if it is simultaneously a security guarantor in Europe and at the same time active in Asia and vis-à-vis China? And what part can the European allies contribute?

In this debate in particular, it would be important for Germany and the EU to play a leading role in order to reduce the excessive burden placed on the United States in Europe. The fact that that isn’t happening and that, on the contrary, Europe is without a leader, is seen as a problem across all parties in Washington.

“Also an example to China”

tagesschau.de: What follows? Does it endanger the reorientation of US foreign policy because its tasks in Europe will remain very large as long as no other leading power imposes itself?

Fix: The US has an interest in Europe and in Russia not winning this war, because from the US perspective that also sets an example for China.

On the one hand, it’s about Europe’s security, but on the other hand, it’s also about sending a signal that the USA is committed to the existing order and that there will be a reaction when red lines – like those of Russia – are crossed with a war of aggression. However, the challenge of the century from an American perspective is China.

At the moment, the resource issue is not so pressing that the US would have to choose between Europe and China. However, should relations with China continue to deteriorate in the future, the pressure on this issue may well increase.

“National Security Council would make sense”

tagesschau.de: Is it also noticeable here that the federal government is still in the process of drafting a national security strategy?

Fix: It is taking its revenge that Germany is only now developing a national security strategy for the first time. On the one hand, because such a strategy always makes sense and gives the government’s entire work a leitmotif in terms of foreign policy.

Even more important than the strategy, however, is how you execute that strategy. And there is a lack of institutions and structures in Germany. In the USA there is the National Security Council, which is exclusively concerned with bringing together foreign and defense policy and the secret services and preparing decisions for the President.

Especially in times of war you realize that such a body would be useful. Especially in a government that consists of three parties, in which you have to bring different ministries together, this coordination body, which is the National Security Council in the USA, is missing. And that weakens German foreign policy.

The conversation was led by Eckart Aretz, tagesschau.de