Timing doesn't seem to be one of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's strong suits. Just when the trans-Atlantic relationship seemed to be in defrost mode, he went and concocted a speech for the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy that put everything back into momentary deep freeze. To top it off, the charismatic Schroeder was too ill to attend the Munich meeting and sent his dry Defense Minister Peter Struck to read the questionable speech -- and bear the brunt of the criticism.

In the speech, Schroeder diplomatically disses the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, saying it's worn out its use and suggests fixing it with a "distinguished panel of independent people from both sides of the Atlantic" to present ideas for institutional change. NATO, he said, is "no longer the primary venue where trans-Atlantic partners consult on and coordinate strategic ideas." At the meeting, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who, true to his witty humor, introduced himself as "Old Rumsfeld," playing off his "Old Europe" vs "New Europe" crack at the 2003 conference) reacted coolly and in the superlative style beloved by Bush insiders, saying NATO is "the best alliance in the history of humanity" and needs to be maintained. Meanwhile, the ever-popular German Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher, spent much of Sunday trying to shake hands and offer assurances that Germany is not trying to give NATO the boot.

Some German commentators were very harsh on Schroeder -- even more so than Rummy in his prime. Monday's tabloid Bild is full of indignation. "The Chancellor thinks that NATO is old rubbish that doesn't work. What's happening? Does the Chancellor want to turn the alliance into a toothless debating club? If Europe's most important NATO partner starts questioning the alliance, a new trans-Atlantic crisis will erupt. That can't be in our interests."

Other papers were more practical, praising Schroder's message, if not his method of delivery or his solution. "Schroeder's diagnosis is correct," says the Financial Times Deutschland and "all the agitation and refusal surrounding his suggestions are dishonest. ... But Schroeder is suggesting the wrong path. ... The answers are not to be found from an advisory panel, but from the heads of state and governments themselves." In short, says the paper, NATO has to stay, but "the empty content of US-Europe summits as they currently exist are not the answer."

The financial daily Handelsblatt, too, gives Schroeder credit for beginning a needed debate over NATO reform. "The chancellor is right to maintain that NATO should in the future no longer be the only trans-Atlantic vehicle for dialogue. Emotions over the Iraq war have made us forget that most of the trans-Atlantic points of discussion fall into completely different categories: Trade conflicts, the Kyoto Protocol, the weapons embargo against China -- these are issues where the EU is Washington's primary interlocutor." The paper insists that the newly erupted NATO discussion is a "phantom debate" because the communication between the EU and the US can get as heated as it wants without having any effect on how NATO really operates. Still, it insists, "one should not get distracted by the chancellor's idea of an 'expert group.'" Instead, what is important is the "kernel of the idea" -- that the relationship among NATO partners should not be loosened, but strengthened.

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung comes up with the best analysis of all, aptly summarizing what many other commentators tried less agilely to spit out. Schroeder's message that NATO is not dead but that new structures are needed is accurate. "The tragic part of his thoughts: They are right, but nevertheless Schroeder's suggestions won't have any success. The form Schroeder used to present his proposals damaged them severely, maybe even irreparably." Part of the problem, the paper says, is that NATO is so big (26 members) and often "the members don't talk to each other. ... Iraq and the outside interests of the US have destroyed the atmosphere." Also, it says, although the political weight of the EU has risen, that change has not been mirrored in the way Washington views Europe. "It's a crucial error of the US administration," the paper writes. In sum, the speech should be boiled down and reduced to what Schroeder meant, rather than what he actually said. So far, no commentators have offered to step in and help Schroeder write his next NATO speech more eloquently.

The second major theme for German commentators on Monday is the major neo-Nazi demonstration in Dresden over the weekend. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Feb. 13, 1945 bombing of Dresden at the hands of the Allies, over 6,000 neo-Nazis -- the biggest such demonstration since the end of World War II -- marched through the Dresden old town on Sunday carrying signs mourning the "victims of the bombing terror." Most papers devote front page stories to the march with most focusing on the overwhelming rejection by Dresden residents of neo-Nazi attempts to rewrite history.

The conservative daily Die Welt pronounces the neo-Nazi demo, organized by the far-right National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) which was voted into the Saxony state government last September, a complete failure. The overwhelming majority of those on the streets of Dresden (some 60,000 according to some sources), the paper argues, struck the right note in mourning for the up to 40,000 victims of the air raid without succumbing to historical revisionism. "As impudent as the (right-wing) slogans are ... this Feb. 13 was a total bust for the extremists. It was to be their great day, but they only managed to demonstrate that they are merely a fringe group." The failure of the right wing to take advantage of this historically touchy anniversary should, writes the paper, "be grounds for composure among Germany's democrats."