Ukrainian leaders have been desperate for several months to acquire additional armored vehicles, especially tanks. Time is not on their side as they prepare for a spring offensive to recover territory seized by Russia, and leaders in Kyiv also realize they must be prepared to counter Russia’s own spring offensive.
The Ukrainians appear to have gotten what they wanted. After protracted negotiations with its NATO allies, the Biden Administration announced it would provide Ukraine 31 M1 Abrams tanks. With the Americans’ announcement providing some political cover, Germany agreed to send 14 of its Leopard 2 tanks in a corresponding move. The Germans also announced they would provide additional tanks in the future and allow other countries that had purchased their tanks in past to send them to Ukraine. The United Kingdom also intends to send 14 of its Challenger 2 tanks.
This comes after the U.S. announced $2.5 billion in additional military assistance to Ukraine that included 100 Bradley fighting vehicles and over 90 Strykers — about two brigades of combat power. The Biden Administration has provided over $27 billion in military assistance thus far, including 50,000 antitank weapons, nearly 300 artillery pieces or mortars, and over one million artillery rounds.
Other NATO members — including France, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have announced similar packages of armored vehicles. Armored vehicles like the Bradley are often referred to as “battlefield taxis.” They are designed to carry an infantry squad and move them rapidly on the battlefield in offensive operations or as a mobile reserve. But such vehicles are not “tanks” which are crucial if Ukraine is going to be successful in any upcoming offensive or respond to future Russian attacks.
Kyiv has maintained that tanks are key to turning the tide of the war. Western tanks will help Ukraine break through the frozen battlelines kept static by ongoing artillery battles, and the Leopards and Abrams will be a major upgrade over the Soviet-era T-72 tanks they have relied on thus far.
But Western support for Ukraine is also critical politically if Putin’s efforts to destroy Ukraine are to be thwarted. The recently announced military aid packages also mark a significant change in what the West is willing to provide. It has not come easily, as there was significant disagreement among NATO allies about providing Kyiv tanks.
This centered on Germany. For months pressure has been building on Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, to support the transfer of Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine. Made by a German firm, the Leopard 2 would substantially boost Ukraine’s offensive capabilities.
There are more than 2,000 Leopard 2s in the arsenals of 13 Western European armies, and Germany’s Bundeswehr operates around 350. That means there is a common pool of spare parts, ammunition, as well as maintenance expertise to train/sustain Ukrainian forces with this weapon. Poland, Finland, the Baltic Republics, and other NATO countries have indicated their willingness to provide Leopard 2 tanks they purchased from Germany to Ukraine. Because of end-user export controls, however, none could be transferred to Kyiv without Berlin’s agreement.
To break the logjam, the U.K. was first to announce its intentions to provide tanks. Its small number showed this was primarily political signaling, rather than solely military aid.
Washington, meanwhile, urged Germany to support Poland’s announced willingness to send its tanks to Kyiv and provide additional Leopard 2s from its own stocks. Scholtz remained reluctant unless the Biden Administration was willing to provide its M1 Abrams tank. Despite arguing that the Abrams would require extensive training and maintenance and be difficult for Kyiv to operate and sustain, President Biden announced the administration had changed its mind.
Germans have a particular sensitivity to “delivering arms in regions where German arms were historically used to kill millions of people.” Ukraine was one of the most devastated areas in Europe during the Second World War and a principal battleground for Nazi and Soviet forces on the Eastern Front.
At present, the chancellor is also the leader of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) which has a long history of pursuing good relations with the Soviet Union and subsequently Russia. Its political heritage is based on former Chancellor Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and policies of détente during the Cold War. Scholz’s predecessor and Germany’s longest-serving Chancellor, Angela Merkel, pursued similar policies with Russia through expanded political and economic relations.
Scholz also faced domestic political pressures from his three-party coalition. It includes pacifists who fear escalation, and many have the mistaken desire to provide Ukraine with only “defensive” rather than “offensive” weapons. He further feared making decisions alone without the backing from NATO partners, particularly the U.S. as the de facto leader of the alliance, and that crossing of so-called “redlines” with Russia could result in the Kremlin escalating the ongoing conflict. Still, a few days after the invasion Scholz had delivered a speech to the Bundestag and announced a Zeitwende or watershed moment for his nation. This major revision in future defense planning included 100 billion Euros in additional defense spending and a pledge to meet the NATO spending goal of 2 percent of GDP.
This latest diplomatic flap, however, underscores two important. First, NATO unity is essential to the West’s overall ability to halt Moscow’s aggression, and it will be tested in the months ahead which will likely be decisive. Kyiv and the West’s objectives in this conflict overlap, but they are not the same. Ukrainians complain the West seeks to provide Kyiv with the capabilities to prevent Moscow from winning but not sufficient for Ukraine to achieve its objectives which is the recovery all its lost territory to include Crimea — though this may be changing.
Second, Germany must define its new role as a leader in the Alliance in the 21st century. Ultimately, can Chancellor Scholz deliver on his proposed Zeitwende and a new vision for German national security free of historical baggage? Or will the center of European security and leadership move east to countries like Poland and the Baltic States in the future?
More broadly the West must be clear-eyed in its overall assessment as we approach the one-year mark in this war. Despite reports of 180,000 casualties since this war began, there is no sign Putin is seeking an end to the conflict. Russia is preparing for a long war and placing its economy on a war footing. It is reported in Vedomosti, the Russian business daily, that Putin describes the work of the Russian military-industrial complex as an essential factor in Moscow’s ultimate victory.
At the same time, the Biden Administration must also recognize the dramatic geopolitical changes that have occurred since this war began. The war in Ukraine is hardly an isolated event, and the global landscape has changed inextricably. Tensions in Asia continue to grow. The debate over tanks is symptomatic of broader geostrategic challenges focused on American industrial capacity. Can the U.S. increase its industrial capacity to meet all emerging global requirements? Its announcement to spend billions of dollars over the next 15 years to expand conventional munitions production seems to suggest this is a new focus.
This may also have a significant geopolitical impact. Some in Germany fear American defense industries will benefit from the transfer of the Leopard 2 to Ukraine. They worry Washington will seek to sell the M1 Abrams tank to those European states to replace the Leopard 2s they provide Kyiv. Earlier this month Poland announced a second agreement to purchase 116 Abrams at a cost of $1.4 billion. This deal follows last year's $4.7 billion agreement for the acquisition of 250 upgraded M1A2 Abrams tanks scheduled for delivery in 2025-26. Poland is also awaiting delivery of American HIMARS artillery systems and has already received Patriot missile batteries.
Many other American allies have announced significant increases in defense spending that will result in dramatic increases in American foreign military sales. If both Germany and Japan reach their recently stated goals of spending two percent of GDP on defense this would translate into $140 billion per year for Tokyo and $90 billion for Berlin. Japan would then have the third-largest defense budget on the planet and Germany would be fourth. French President Macron also announced his nation would increase defense spending by 40% over the next few years. This would be 60 billion Euros annually or roughly what is spent by Russian Federation.
But as the world becomes an increasingly dangerous place there are open questions on whether American congressional leadership is up to the emerging challenge. Can Washington find the proper balance between strategic goals and the means to achieve them?
