In a significant development within Germany’s legislative body, the Bundestag, a majority of members voted against a resolution directly urging the German government to commence the supply of Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine.
This decision came after a proposal put forward by the opposition bloc of the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU).
Parliament President Bärbel Bas reported that the vote concluded with 182 in favor, 480 against, and 5 abstentions, following extensive parliamentary debates.
The rejection of this proposal highlights the complexities and considerations within Germany regarding military support in the ongoing conflict involving Ukraine.
Additionally, German lawmakers are set to discuss a draft document presented by the ruling coalition parties, led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, including the Social Democrats, Free Democrats, and the Greens.
This document advocates for the German Cabinet to start providing Ukraine with long-range weapon systems capable of targeting strategic locations deep within Russian territory.
However, it notably omits any mention of the Taurus missiles specifically.
The primary contention surrounding the supply of Taurus missiles lies in their extensive range of up to 500 kilometers, a capability Germany has yet to provide to Kyiv in its weapon supplies.
The German expert community has debated whether these missiles could be programmed to avoid use against Russian territory, a concern that has reportedly drawn Chancellor Scholz’s attention, leading to discussions with representatives from the military industry.
In related news, the German newspaper Handelsblatt reported in January, citing senior diplomats and government officials, that the UK had requested Germany to sell Taurus cruise missiles to aid London in supplying Ukraine with additional Storm Shadow missiles.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius later stated he was unaware of such a proposal.
This decision by the German parliament underscores the delicate balance between providing support to Ukraine and managing the broader implications of military aid, reflecting the ongoing international debate on the conflict’s dynamics and the role of military assistance.
