When did Germany become a security liability?

There were lots of smiles and some awkward soccer banter when German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock met her British counterpart David Cameron in Berlin earlier this week.

Cameron was careful to tiptoe around Berlin’s recent security blunders, after an online call between German officials discussing British military activities in Ukraine was intercepted by Russia.

Alliances aren’t just about money, they are also about trust and dependability

Britain’s former prime minister is good at this diplomatic dance, and he made a valiant effort to not, in his words, “play into the hands of some Russian narrative about divisions between allies.” But it’s hard to paper over the cracks these recent security breaches have caused.

After a shaky start to the Ukraine war, Germany has made an effort to become a dependable ally to Ukraine and a country able to take a fair share of the responsibility for security in Europe. It is now the second largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine, and has recently boosted funding for its own armed forces by €100 billion. Last month, in a reversal of roles, Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged the US and the European Union to “send a clear signal” to Vladimir Putin by ramping up support for Ukraine.

Yet alliances aren’t just about money; they are also about trust and dependability. And in the last few weeks, Germany has squandered large amounts of both. There has been an intense debate over whether Germany should supply Kyiv with long-range Taurus cruise missiles. Scholz, who is against the idea for fear of escalating tensions with Russia, claimed that Britain and France help Ukraine launch missiles at Russian targets, which Germany could not do. His discussion of British involvement in Ukraine was rightly slammed as “a gift to Russian propagandists” and “a flagrant abuse of intelligence” in the UK.

But worse was to come. Last weekend, the Russian propaganda channel RT released a thirty-eight-minute recording of a supposedly top-secret discussion between senior German air force officials about the Taurus missiles. The officers used standard, commercial video-conferencing software and one of them, Brigadier General Frank Gräfe, had joined the call from a hotel room in Singapore. This careless set-up allowed Russia to intercept the connection.

The men, among them Ingo Gerhartz, the commander of the Luftwaffe, Germany’s air force, discussed in frank detail — and as it turned out for the whole world to hear — the politics and practicalities of how Taurus could be used in Ukraine.

Among the topics of discussion was how many Taurus strikes it would take to destroy the strategically important Crimean Bridge (“ten or twenty,” the officers assumed), how many missiles could be delivered in total (a maximum of 100, “that’s it, that’s obvious”) and uncertainty over Scholz’s position (“no one knows why the federal chancellor is blocking the dispatch of the missiles — this gives rise to all sorts of outlandish rumors”).

The fact that Russia was able to intercept the conversation was in itself embarrassing and damaging. But the fact that Moscow chose to release this recording suggests they could potentially have access to even more information.

It has also allowed Putin to crank his propaganda machine up another notch. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, announced on social media: “Our historic adversaries, the Germans, have once again turned into our archenemies… The World War Two-era call has once again become relevant: DEATH TO THE FASCISTS!”

But more damaging still is that the intercepted details reveal information about British involvement in Ukraine. As the Luftwaffe officers discussed whether Taurus can be deployed without direct German involvement, Gerhartz suggested that Britain has “a few people on the ground… yes, dear Lord, they’d be looking over the Ukrainians’ shoulders while they load the Taurus.”

Such revelations call into question whether Germany can be relied upon to keep shared military information out of enemy hands. Richard Dannatt, the former head of the British army, said he was “very disappointed” by the leak. Tobias Ellwood, a Tory Member of Parliament and former chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, argued that “basic protocols” appear to have been neglected. Former British defense secretary Ben Wallace slammed Germany for being “pretty penetrated by Russian intelligence, so it just demonstrates they are neither secure nor reliable.”

Scholz himself has also come under intense criticism. His earlier indiscretion, combined with the Taurus leaks, has led to a strong sense that German leaders are unreliable when it comes to defense matters. Wallace even argued that “as far as the security of Europe goes he is the wrong man, in the wrong job at the wrong time.”

Cameron struck a more conciliatory tone in Berlin on Thursday, avoiding direct criticism of Germany by arguing that the Taurus missile debate was a “matter for the German government to decide.” But it was plain for all to see that the emphasis on unity was for Russia’s benefit when Cameron directly challenged Scholz, saying: “If what you’re doing is helping a country defend itself from illegal and completely unjustified aggression, then there should be nothing to stop you helping that country to fight back to recover its territory.”

No matter how convincing Baerbock and Cameron were in their display of amiability, elsewhere tensions have already spilled over. The German ambassador to the UK, Miguel Berger, has called Ben Wallace’s comments “extremely unhelpful,” arguing that “this is what Russia wants.” He also saw “no need to apologize” for German security breaches that included British military information.

Scholz and his allies feel politically safe on this issue. A recent survey has suggested that only 35 percent of Germans want their government to send the missiles. Many in his own party have applauded Scholz for resisting pressure from Germany’s allies, comparing the situation to when his predecessor Gerhard Schröder defied American requests to take Germany into the Iraq War — a clumsy analogy given Schröder’s friendship with Putin.

Regardless of Scholz’s position, in the short, medium and long term, re-establishing German credibility on security matters is crucial. With American support in Europe uncertain, Berlin needs to work closely with London and Paris. Ad-hoc statements by the chancellor and security leaks by his air force undermine not only Germany’s credibility but also western unity. And that is what Russia wants.

This article was originally published on The Spectator’s UK website.