Unraveling Connections: the Taurus and the Telephone Call

For nearly a year, Germany has debated over the prospect of delivering its most advanced cruise missile platform to Ukraine. Ukraine’s request for the weapon would serve to help alleviate escalating concerns over ammunition shortages, and deliver much needed precision strike capabilities against Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine. Nonetheless, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been adamant that the transfer of its coveted Taurus weapons system was a non-starter despite a splintering governing coalition and criticism from senior defense officials.  

Far from its bull-hurdling catapult namesake (think Monty Python), the Taurus KEPD-350 is among the most advanced weapons systems of its type in the world. The weapon is engineered to be launched from fighter aircraft, traveling at speeds approaching supersonic levels at an altitude of only 35 meters, rendering it nearly invisible to radar detection. The system is capable of precisely maneuvering its 400-kilogram warhead up to 500 kilometers, with the destructive capacity to penetrate several layers of reinforced concrete before exploding. Ukraine has already deployed the British Storm Shadow and French SCALP cruise missile platforms, but the German-Swedish Taurus system would extend Ukraine’s reach with precision-guided munitions well into Russian-occupied Crimea, and possibly Moscow itself.  

Though Ukraine has pledged to refrain from using the weapon system to attack legitimate Russian territory, fears of escalation continue to motivate Chancellor Scholz’s apprehension about supplying the missiles to Ukraine. Contravening Ukraine’s assurances, Scholz has repeatedly expressed concern that Taurus missiles could be used by Ukraine precisely for that purpose. Although Russia has regularly targeted Kyiv with its own cruise missiles, Scholz fears that this capability may be seen as a ‘bridge too far’ for Putin. Moreover, the Chancellor emphasized that he would not allow German military personnel to be deployed in Ukraine to assist in the targeting and programming of the missiles. Only, in his establishment of this red line, Scholz indicated that personnel from other NATO allies including France and the U.K. were already present in Ukraine to perform supporting roles in the operation of their own missile systems. Scholz's comments swiftly provoked criticism from U.K. officials, who refuted this characterization of supporting U.K. troops in Ukraine, instead acknowledging that a “small number” of troops were present to provide training and diplomatic security. In addition, Scholz was panned for his perceived negligence and lack of resolve on the matter of European security, sentiments that were echoed by certain factions within the German government.  

Adding to the embarrassment, on March 5th, Russian state media leaked a 38 minute Webex phone conversation between senior German military officers discussing the deployment scenarios for Taurus cruise missiles in Ukraine. The officers’ comments indicated that an immediate deployment of the missile system would require German military personnel involvement, but if Ukrainian soldiers were to be trained to operate the system, it would take months. In addition, their discussion alluded to the active involvement of British troops in Ukraine, particularly in helping the Ukrainian military with targeting of their Storm Shadow missiles. Potential targets for the Taurus missiles were also discussed, with particular emphasis on the Kerch bridge, which links mainland Russia with Crimea. Above all, the officers’ questioned the reticence of Scholz in approving the transfer of the missiles to Ukraine. Lieutenant General Ingo Gerhartz, the current Inspector of the German Air Force, voiced his concerns during the call regarding how the Chancellor's obstruction is fueling "wild rumors" about the reasons behind the non-deployment of Taurus missiles, particularly those suggesting that the missiles do not work properly. The apparent rift between Scholz and senior military officials, in addition to the optics of the leak itself, prompted both national embarrassment and international outcry. 

Immediate responses called into question the security of Germany’s communication systems, and its ability to handle sensitive information. Defense politician and fellow party member of the Chancellor, Joe Weingarten, criticized the professionalism of the officers engaged in the call. In addition, former German intelligence chief August Hanning referred to the leak as just the “tip of the iceberg”. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius sought to alleviate these concerns by attributing the leak to a case of user error, specifically pointing out that one of the officers, while staying at their hotel in Singapore, used an insecure phone connection. In the U.K., a spokesperson from No. 10 took the opportunity to push Scholz further on the Taurus missiles issue, emphasizing that the U.K. had led the way in providing Ukraine with long-range missiles and urged Germany to follow suit. Moreover, Whitehall insiders conveyed to the press that while the Ministry of Defense might find the leak irritating, the disclosed information was deemed too vague to present a direct threat. Predictably, the Kremlin’s reaction elicited outrage, highlighting how the German military was planning strikes on Russian “territory” in a “substantive and concrete manner”. The Kremlin's intention behind the leak is evident: to sow divisions within the Western alliance and fuel narratives framing the conflict as a confrontation with NATO rather than Ukraine. However, the precise impact of the leak toward these goals remains uncertain. 

At the time of writing, no further sensitive information from German sources has leaked concerning any security-related matters. Russia's sudden decision to leak the recorded call suggests that it did not expect to obtain any more actionable information from its intelligence sources. Therefore, the idea that Germany's defense apparatus has been completely compromised is highly questionable at best. What is certain is that the Chancellor’s reticence on the transfer of Taurus missiles has endured the international embarrassment of the leak. As of now, international outcry appears to have diminished following a recent state visit by David Cameron on March 7th and a meeting between Scholz and French President Macron on March 17th, aimed at demonstrating unity among European powers regarding the issue. However, for Scholz, domestic pressures concerning the Taurus missiles, exacerbated by the leak, have not dissolved. The opposition Christian Democratic party brought the matter to a vote on March 14th, and the ensuing debate highlighted divisions within the Chancellor's governing coalition. Notably, the parliamentary chair of the Chancellor’s party hinted at reverting to the party’s previous, more pacifist stances, posing the question, “Is it not time to start thinking, not about how to conduct a war, but how to freeze this conflict and later end it?”.  

As the demand for a renewed European commitment to Ukraine grows, particularly in light of the recent disruption in war material support from the United States, the internal politics of Germany will become a crucial point of focus. This is especially significant given Germany's role as Ukraine's largest European arms supplier. Should the pacifist leanings of the Chancellor’s party become more dominant, it may be up to other NATO allies within Europe to fill the void. If pro-Ukraine factions gain dominance in the Bundestag, it's conceivable that Scholz's apprehensiveness on the matter of Taurus missiles could be overridden. Regardless, the resolution of these potential scenarios will send a strong signal regarding Europe's stance as the third year of the conflict in Ukraine unfolds.