Original article (in Montenegrin) was published on 17/2/2025; Author: Nina Đuranović
The resolution of the war situation in Ukraine has been the subject of various diplomatic meetings, which have intensified significantly in recent weeks following Donald Trump’s inauguration as President of the United States (USA).
However, European politicians perceive Trump’s mediation as a threat to the existing Western policy toward Ukraine and Russia.
At a press conference held on Thursday, February 13, Olaf Scholz addressed the situation in Ukraine, after which the media widely reported the news that:
Germany is declaring a state of emergency and that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called on parliament to declare a state of emergency due to the conflict in Ukraine.
This information was relayed by Montenegrin media Gradski portal (archived here), Dan (archived here), Budiminfo.me (archived here), as well as the regional media B92 (archived here), Srbija danas (archived here), Novosti.rs (archived here), Alo.rs (archived here), Blic (archived here), Nezavisne novine (archived here), Novine.info (archived here), Faktormagazin (archived here), Prelistaj.rs (archived here), Intermagazin.rs (archived here), Iskra (archived here), Vaseljenska (archived here), Banja Luka 24 (archived here), ATV Banja Luka (archived here), Oslobođenje.ba (archived here), Raport.ba (archived here), Slobodna Bosna (archived here), Central News (archived here).
The news was also shared by numerous Facebook users, some of whom posted a clip from the press conference. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Emergency situation, not a state of emergency.
Neither the video on Facebook nor the full speech delivered by the still-incumbent Chancellor Scholz contains a call for the German parliament to declare a state of emergency in Germany.
A transcript of his speech is available on the Bundestag’s website (archived here).
Neither the video on Facebook nor the full speech delivered by the still-incumbent Chancellor Scholz contains a call for the German parliament to declare a state of emergency in Germany.
Scholz presented proposals to ensure Germany’s security in the context of the situation in Ukraine.
“Due to the events of the last 24 hours and statements from the U.S. government, this issue can no longer be postponed. We must act—and act immediately. For weeks and months, I have been calling for clarity on how we will reliably finance our security and have put forward proposals on how this can be achieved:
First: We need a reform of the debt brake to exempt investments in our security and defense from its restrictions. I expect other democratic parties to support this proposal. This is about the peace and security of our country.
Second: The Bundestag should, as soon as possible, adopt a decision in accordance with Article 115, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, classifying the war in Ukraine and its serious consequences for the security of Germany and Europe as an emergency situation. This would mean that our support for Ukraine, which is more crucial today than ever, would no longer come at the expense of other obligations our state must fulfill toward its citizens.”
Based on the transcript, it is clear that Scholz did not propose declaring a state of emergency in Germany. Instead, he suggested classifying “the war in Ukraine and its serious consequences for Germany” as an emergency situation, which would also lead to an increase in defense funding for Germany.
In his speech, he referred to the Basic Law, specifically Article 115.
What is the essence of his proposal?
Classifying the situation as an emergency would allow the German government to bypass constitutional debt restrictions, known as the “debt brake” in German law. This would enable a significant increase in defense spending, which Scholz described as a necessary measure.
In essence, such a decision would mean that Germany considers the current situation a serious security threat.
Fundamentally, Scholz proposed an exemption from debt restrictions and an increase in defense funding, ensuring that support for Ukraine does not come at the expense of other state obligations. Reuters has also reported on this, confirming that he did not propose a state of emergency in Germany, as some social media posts claim.
Thus, Scholz’s proposals do not involve restricting civil liberties or introducing emergency measures typical of a formal state of emergency. Instead, his focus is on financial and strategic aspects, particularly in the context of defense and security.
The full recording of his speech is also available on the Bundestag’s website.
A state of emergency in Germany is declared only in exceptional circumstances and is subject to strict constitutional and legal safeguards to prevent abuse.
The Spanish fact-checking portal Maldita has also examined similar claims that emerged in the Spanish-speaking world.
In their analysis, they highlighted the legal frameworks for declaring a state of emergency.
“A state of emergency, or ‘state of defense’ as defined in German legislation, is declared if ‘the federal territory of the Federal Republic of Germany is under attack by armed forces or is directly threatened by such an attack,’ according to Article 115a of the German Constitution. The procedure for declaring a ‘state of defense’ in Germany is that, at the request of the Federal Government, the parliament determines whether the conditions for a state of defense exist, but it does not declare it as such.
Germany is not introducing a state of emergency due to the situation in Ukraine, nor has the incumbent Chancellor Scholz requested this from the German parliament. He proposed that the war in Ukraine and its consequences for Germany’s and Europe’s security be classified as an emergency situation in a special parliamentary decision and that financial allocations for the defense sector be increased.
It is clear that the media have misinterpreted Scholz’s statement.
For all the reasons mentioned above, we classify these posts as disinformation.
Edit: 19. 2. 2025
The Nezavisne novine portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” This rating is given in cases where the media outlet establishes that the content it has published falls under one of the above-described negative ratings and then proceeds to correct it in a clear and visible way, per the principles of publishing corrections.
Edit: 20. 2. 2025
The b92 portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” This rating is given in cases where the media outlet establishes that the content it has published falls under one of the above-described negative ratings and then proceeds to correct it in a clear and visible way, per the principles of publishing corrections.
Edit: 24. 2. 2025
The Slobodna Bosna portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” This rating is given in cases where the media outlet establishes that the content it has published falls under one of the above-described negative ratings and then proceeds to correct it in a clear and visible way, per the principles of publishing corrections.
The Raport.ba portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” This rating is given in cases where the media outlet establishes that the content it has published falls under one of the above-described negative ratings and then proceeds to correct it in a clear and visible way, per the principles of publishing corrections.
The Dan portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” This rating is given in cases where the media outlet establishes that the content it has published falls under one of the above-described negative ratings and then proceeds to correct it in a clear and visible way, per the principles of publishing corrections.
Edit: 25. 2. 2025
The Oslobodjenje portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” This rating is given in cases where the media outlet establishes that the content it has published falls under one of the above-described negative ratings and then proceeds to correct it in a clear and visible way, per the principles of publishing corrections.
