Why not send Leopards? I would send Abrams but everyone says they are too heavy. Not sure i totally get that because I’m sure the US military wouldn’t leave their tanks behind but then our logistics are wa y different.
Ukraine has gotten literally thousands of vehicles to Ukraine. Ukraine has seized many Russian vehicles they can use but it’s not helping Ukraine win, they are still being pressed and losing ground. The west sends enough to Ukraine to keep the war going but not enough to win. We want Russia to bleed and Ukraine is our tool to make this happen. As I heard the congressman say tonight. No one makes money off of peace. I haven to question our motives but mostly I just think both of these countries are exhausted and are recovering. Ukraine has lost a lot more than they admit imho.
I have heard Ukraine is outfitting many units with western gear and training and preparing NATO style organizations so maybe I misread things and Ukraine is just preparing, they need better equipment and Leopards are a good piece to go with all the APC’s that are being sent.
Now they just need a few F-18 squadrons, a 100 or so attack helicopters, and if you really want to win start sending Tomahawks but that would upset Russia and we don’t want that.
Leopards are as -close to a premier tank as they can get. Maybe other tanks can be better but it’s close enough that quality crews will make the difference. It can kill anything the Russians have.
The thing that worries me is that the Secretary of the Navy said unless our defense industry gets their act together we will have to choose between arming Ukraine or the US. This is not the war the West has prepared for.
Sorry a bit off topic perhaps. The scope of the human tragedy here outweighs any one weapon system. I don’t know how to bring peace, that seems mostly up to Putin.
The problem with the Abrams isnt that they are heavy, it’s that they are gas-guzzlers. They use a turbine engine that uses aviation fuel. It enables high performance and in the US context simplified logistics but it absolutely needs as US-level logistics chain behind it.
For those without that superpower the diesel-powered Leopard 2 was the better choice: Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Poland and every other NATO country except the US, UK and France.
In Ukraine’s case Poland, Czechia and Slovakia are all existing operators which would greatly simplify maintenance.
One of the big problems facing Ukraine now is with 2 countries suppling western tanks to Ukraine(Poland, GB) is the training on western tanks as they are completely different from Soviet tanks. Everything from driving, to loading ammo to the way you aim the cannon is completely opposite of Russian models and at the very least it will take 4 months if not more to train tank crews to be competent on the operation and handling of said tanks.
Add to that you need to train the mechanics on how to repair and maintain said tanks which will require western parts to run which means supply chain issues down the road. Then there is the logistics to keep the tanks armed and refuelled all of which takes time to learn.
As one military expert put it even if Ukraine gets the tanks now they most likely won’t be fielded until late May or June after they’ve received condensed training on the use of said tanks and even then only 14 leopard2’s will be available and I’m not sure how many Challenger tanks the British are sending but likely it will be a small amount as well.
There is a much bigger picture, yes the war is costing Russia but now China and Iran can also use it to weaken the US/West.
For one the “Iranian Drones” have over 50% Western tech as a lot of the tech is not on sanctions list. So Iran can trade these quite happily with Russia. There is also China which grows closer to Russia, yes it is a relation of convenience but they have the same interest in weakening the West.
Also exports to Kazachstan which has an economic union has ballooned AND as for oil exports it is HARD to control them as we cannot “license plate ( a method of tracking)” at a molecular level.
Not saying what is good or right her but the Ukraine could have gotten the heavy weapons earlier and now things are escalating slowly into what we don’t now yet.
The only thing I can see happening on a diplomatic level is like what happened in the 80s where the communications channels stayed open and even at the height of the denuclearization treaties were agreed. In international relations we called it “narrowing the gap” by at least focussing agreeing on something we absolutely don’t want to happen.
Also in Austrian/German which sound cool :-), I worked there for a while and my old Uni also has a Campus there .
Kind of funny that the Austrians put the F-14 Tomcats as one of the planes he USA could deliver to the Ukraine, maybe they watched a certain dented Tomcat flick last year (Hey Iran has them too).
Remember that we said this too about all the HIMARS, Patriots and all the other heavy duty equipment of western manufacturing that was sent over there. It hasn’t kept them from using those systems to great effect. Quite to the contrast, they have surprised most people in how quickly they have been at adapting and integrating these systems into their military.
The question is not whether the Ukrainians can use the stuff, but whether we are willing to provide everything they need to use it.
I can see that the Abrams brings complex logistics though, especially considering the fact that you need different fuel, so I would think it is only worth it if they are being sent in significant numbers, say a 100+.
This kind of speech is a little demeaning to Ukraine, but yes, the US has effectively kneecapped their second biggest geopolitical rival at bargain price.
The Ukrainian logistics and maintenance corps are going to be first in line for a medal when this war is over as the diversity of eqiupment they have received and continue to support would make any normal mechanic or logistic officer run screaming into the night.
I do not mean to demean Ukraine. They are fighting a war for survival and are being fed just enough to survive by the West. I state that the motives of the West are much more basic than the survival of Ukraine we want to break Russia but not start a nuclear war. Russia came into this war with a grand plan and the west has its own plan. Ukraine wants freedom and life. They are doing the best they can to fend off a country 3 times their population and they are caught in the middle of this struggle. I would have accused the US of wanting this war but I think that’s too far. Our intelligence estimates were way off exceeded only by Russia’s inability to predict the reaction of the West. The only ones who got it right were the Ukrainians who said hell no we aren’t rolling over. Imagine if the Czechs in 1938 had the balls these Ukrainians have shown.
You are right. Abrams tanks are probably more trouble than they are worth unless they come with US crews. Logistics must already be a nightmare for Ukraine. So many weapons systems most of them only in small numbers. For example how many different mobile artillery systems have been sent and this is one type.
Chewbacca is also right. This is an economic struggle between blocks. The harsher our sanctions, the more we push China to Russia. And lots of countries do all they can to subvert sanctions to make money. Blockades are always tough and that is what this feels more and more like.
Good thoughts all the way around. I would raise one more point. We just recently announced Leopards and Patriot missiles etc. I wonder if Ukraine may have been training on these systems before. If so, they may field these units more quickly but the biggest delay will still probably be the spring mud season.
This is also demeaning speech to Ukraine. Somehow you still believe this is a conflict between the US/NATO and Russia, but it’s not. It’s a conflict between Ukraine and Russia which is older than the US itself. It is this kind of thinking that is so America-centric and absolutely insulting to the people actually caught up in war. For once, the US takes a good foreign policy stance and people are still going around telling they are playing some puppet master game. It’s disgusting
It is not though. The economic conflict between the west and Russia is different and separate from the one with China. China and Russia are adverseries too, but they will cooperate if it weakens their mutual rival. Also note that the Chinese much rather supply the west with consumer goods than they are willing to help Russia dodge sanctions. If the situation allows, sure they will profit from both, but Russia is paying them a premium and proper western pressure with secondary sanctions can really cool down their relationship further.
I think I need to make a few points about my position clear.
I support Ukraine, because they are fighting for self-determination, democracy and liberty. They fight against oppression and autocracy. I my eyes, these are genuinely virtuous values to be fighting for. Also, it is a war of self-defense from an agressor. In such case, I find you have the right to defend yourself.
As for the western support in the form of weapons and financing, I think the following should be considered:
Weapons and financing is used to support a decent cause
There is no quid pro quo in this aid. The only thing the Ukrainians give back is their gratitude.
As such I find it disgusting to talk of the Ukrainians as if they have no agency in this. Yes, supporting Ukraine is in the west’s self-interest, but it is also in the best interest of Ukraine. It is not a master-subject relationship, but a mutually beneficial one.
As to the unnecissary prolonging of the war and increase of human misery because of western aid, consider the following:
What would cause more misery? Ukraine losing or winning? I’d say it would be a lot more miserable for them if they lost.
Can Ukraine win this conflict when supported by western aid? I would say yes.
More and better weapons means the Ukrainian army is better equipped to achieve their goals on the battlefield.
3.1 Thus they will suffer less casualties doing so.
3.2 The war will be over sooner.
Therefore, as I see it, sending more and better aid will reduce the amount of misery the Ukrainians will have to endure.
It is a relationship of very deep convenience. Long term and on many levels.
They don’t have interest in weakening the West, but removing threat Western, mostly Anglo, world has posed to the World in past 2-2.5 centuries. According to China, Russia, India, changes happening in the world are just things returning where they were for most of human (known) history - China and India being the leading economies. None of the rest of the world has interest in having the West weak. But they don’t want western hegemony that has brought us huge economic disparities, confrontations and most importantly - disrespect for each other.
Unfortunately, the West lives in its own myopic bubble. Most of it imposed on population by its ruling elite.
What we are witnessing is the end of another empire. We can only hope that it will be prolonged and gradual decline so that we avoid catastrophic destruction.
That is the context for the current conflict.
Russia has made it clear what it wants - long term security for its people. West, mostly Anglo world, is pushing for break-up of Russia as part of a strategy for keeping domination. They have successfully used aggression, political and economic coercion in enforcing their rules so far. They were expecting that similar will work again, although they are not ready for serious confrontation. Russia called their bluff.
Proxy is always biggest loser of a proxy conflict. Ukraine has nothing to win. Europe is the second biggest loser. But it can still win its independence from US. Big question is if Europe is going to avoid physical destruction. I’m afraid that Russia will have to demonstrate its non-nuclear destruction capabilities somewhere.
In order to avoid dangerous situation where US/UK will be complete losers and potentially be tempted with nuclear option, Russia will have to win (ensuring its security) by keeping an illusion of West not losing. Similar with Chinese principle of letting opponent not lose face.
Ukraine will survive in some shape and form. The sooner it starts seriously negotiating and implementing agreed (no Minsk fakery any more) more territory it will keep. Some of its territories will be managed in some form of joint arrangement. It will certainly have to be neutral and demilitarized. It will be rebuilt with Russian and Chinese help (at least some parts).
Now, that is optimistic option for humanity. One where adults find a way to navigate path of compromise without complete destruction.
So Germany will support other countries sending Leopards but will not do so themselves unless the US agrees to send Abrams which nearly everyone feels are too maintenance intensive and fuel hungry for Ukraine to support. Quite a few countries in Europe have Leopards but there are no replacements for them meaning that if those countries give Leopards to Ukraine, they go without tanks.
I think Poland has the right idea but it will be a few years before their own produced K51’s are ready but then they will have their own modern tank industry. In the meantime though I doubt they can give over their Leopards.
Interesting problem. The European cupboard is bare with quite a few leopards in storage. The British have a few Challenger 2’s to give but the number is low and that would only leave the French LeClerc’s. All good options with training but the more alternatives, the longer the training time. Also preparing the Leopards is going to take time to pull from storage.
I think my choice would be too move an Armored Regiment from the US to Germany to repair refurbish M1’s and move at the same time a divisional equivalent in Abrams and logistical support to have active tanks to give Ukraine quickly. That’s pretty expensive but I guess it would force Germany’s hand. It’s not like we didn’t have 2 full divisions over there a couple decades ago. But I’m sure there are dozens of options.
As a compromise, I would only want one quarter of all your possessions.
What? No deal? Why won’t you negotiate? I’m offering a fair deal. Just one quarter of your possessions and we will have no arguments in the future. Why do you keep committing aggression against me by rejecting my fair deal? It’s only fair considering your aggressions against me in the past.
Of course, as a security deposit, another quarter of your possessions must be handed to a neutral third party who will ensure you do not commit further acts of aggression against me which would cause damage to my rightful quarter.
Speaking of myopic bubbles, isn’t it about time you ventured out of the Kremlin propaganda bubble? Russia is demographically doomed, the USA is not. China will reclaim the territories that Russia stole from it after the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion and any deals made between China and Russia are always on China’s terms. Always.
You must be really salty that Ukraine is defending its territory against brutal Russian aggression and doesn’t give in to Putin’s terror bombings and the Russian army butchering women and children everywhere they go.
Donetsk = Ukrainian
Mariupol = Ukrainian
Kharkiv = Ukrainian
Sevastopol and Crimea should be returned as well.
Perhaps we should go further.
Viipuri (Vyborg) should be restored to Finland.
South Ossetia back to Georgia (Sakartvelo)
Abhkazia back to Georgia (Sakartvelo)
The eastern provinces around Vladivostok back to China.
However while the US is open to sending heavy tanks they would rather not send the Abrams for the simple reason that the Abrams tank is the most expensive modern main battle tank to operate and maintain in the world. Instead of diesel they run on jet fuel and get the worst mileage out of any Main Battle tank (1 gallon per 1/2 mile versus 1 to 1.5 miles for most other MBTs)and the motors are notorious for requiring huge amounts of maintenance weekly not to mention the rest of the tank is very high maintenance as well.
As to the Leopard 2 tanks these are the mostly widely used tanks around the world for western nations as they have proven to be reliable, relatively cheap to maintain and are still one of the best tanks out there. The biggest issue for releasing these tanks are the licensing agreements that each country has with Germany in that each country requires Germanys permission to resell to another party which in this case is Ukraine and the Germans are reluctant to allow resale due to perceived escalation of the war with Russia.
The British Challenger 2 is currently Britains Main Battle tank but it is being phased out with the new Challenger 3 MBT. The British want to send 14 plus support and recovery vehicles to Ukraine but the biggest issue for The British is like most over countries they don’t have a huge stockpile of parts, ammunition or engines to give as they also need to meet their own military requirements and commitments.
Lastly is the training of crews for these tanks. Unlike Russian built tanks most western tanks run with a 4 man crew instead of 3 man crew in most Russian tanks. This is because Russian tanks use an auto loader to load shells whereas in western tanks the loading is manually done. Add to that the technology is vastly different as is learning to operate effectively as a tank crew and as part of a 4 man tank squad or 12 tank company.
Then there is the training of the support, repair and resupply crews. To repair and maintain a Leopard 2 tank the course is 15 weeks long but apparently can be condensed down to 10 weeks. For tank crews the training to use, operate and drive the tank is around 14-18 weeks depending on the country using the tank but it can also be condensed down to 8-9 weeks but in either case condensing the repair, resupply and operation of the tanks leads to basic qualifications but not comprehensive knowledge of said tanks.
In the end the total amount of tanks that can be potentially sent in both Leopard 2s and challenger 2 tanks plus support and recovery vehicles by allied countries(not including Germany) is about 18 leopard 2 and 14 challenger tanks plus 20 support and recovery vehicles. Not a lot per se but on a condensed front could be very formidable with proper use and training.
Yes, but none of the options discussed in public makes sense. Abrams in Ukraine became a thing because a single German journalist (with much echo). The Leo 2 are without alternatives. The Leos used to make politics are mosttly A4s, in case of Spain first production. The Ukrainians want more than 200 MBT. The last evaluation of Ukrainian needs by a BW officer was: AA , Artillery and protected transportation (that was very much in the latest Ramstein decissions).
The usefull Leos for Ukraine are only avaiable with some “Ringtausch” (circular barter?)
I am a cold war German, I am used to be behind what Soviet (now Russian) intelligence has informations what the “West” is dooing.
I agree with your points totally. I don’t think Ukraine wants Abrams unless they come with American crews which no one wants. But if some Abrams is the price to free the Leopards then we can make it work. Even if they just sit in reserve to the Leopards or use them as a breakthrough tank like the Tiger was designed to do. The thing all western tanks have is better accuracy and optics than anything the Russians currently field. Shoot first kill first.
A total of 32 tanks is enough to help but I think to small to sustain any push. I could be wrong.
My only worry really is no European country has a replacement for their Leopards and the only tank fall back is greater American presence. The Abrams, like. the F22 is designed for a high intensity war and are very expensive to use in low intensity conflicts. It’s not 1990 anymore and maybe this is why we are exploring lighter tank options. Greater American presence increase’s security but at a steep political cost.
I am a cold war German, I am used to be behind what Soviet (now Russian) intelligence has informations what the “West” is dooing
I respect your opinions here and am a big supporter of Germany providing smart leadership. Unfortunately if Ukraine really needs 200 mbt they don’t have, it sounds if Abrams is the only one in that numbers. I don’t see a solution to that coming in 2023 . The forces that would allow a smaller number of tanks to thrive are adequate air support and attack helicopters which Ukraine doesn’t have either. Maybe a good supply of APC’s can do it? Possible. Bradley’s killed more tanks than Abrams in the gulf.
I’m open to any solutions short of the US/Uk initiating a nuclear exchange to stop the Russian juggernaut before it reached the Rhine . Note to Dejan……it’s not 1975 anymore. The Russian juggernaut tripped getting off the couch.
Yes, but the Abrams should not been send to Uktaine. There are very good Leos which can made aviable.
It is a political decission, not a they are “not avaiable” thing. And my evaluation is based on numbers pre war.
flick last year 
(Hey Iran has them too).
. Note to Dejan……it’s not 1975 anymore. The Russian juggernaut tripped getting off the couch.