‘The lack of chemistry’ between Macron and Scholz hinders assistance to Ukraine – Financial Times

The “lack of chemistry between Macron and Scholz” is complicating the coordination of urgent matters, such as financing for Ukraine.

This information reported according to the Financial Times.

“It seems they simply don’t get along. That’s the crux of it,” said one of the participants in recent negotiations between the two leaders.

The publication points to a “lack of consensus within the Franco-German tandem, which was at the core of EU decision-making.” This tension has persisted for over a year.

As a result, negotiations on several high-priority and time-sensitive issues have reached a “deadlock,” which has alarmed Brussels and other EU capitals, sources told the publication.

This includes discussions regarding the allocation of funds for the six-year EU budget, which contains “decisive” financial support for Ukraine.

“No, it’s not working, and yes, it’s a concern. You can’t achieve the goal if they both don’t see the bigger picture,” said a senior EU official.

Another source suggested that “the two of them just need to sit down in the same room and discuss everything.” Without this, it is “pointless for other EU countries to try to find consensus.”

Official representatives of France and Germany disagree with this interpretation of the situation.

“The fact that there are frictions here is normal because these are significant structural problems related to the competitiveness of our economies. It does not mean that the Franco-German engine of Europe has somehow broken down,” reassured France’s Minister of State for European Affairs, Laurence Bunn.

Another French official suggested that often the disagreements are more about “German-German differences” due to the “unprecedented three-party alliance” between Scholz’s Social Democrats, the liberal FDP, and the Greens.

Sven Giegold, the State Secretary for Economic Affairs in Germany, stated that relations between the countries today are “no worse than in previous decades,” and the disagreements are fundamentally rooted in different visions of energy development.