War in Ukraine: Inside the US and German tank dilemma Shereshevskiy's analysis

The US has blocked the delivery of Western tanks to Ukraine, despite claims to the contrary. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was ready to supply Ukraine with Leopard 2 battle tanks but on one condition. He made it clear that Germany could only give in to pressure to supply if the US also supplied Abrams tanks. Scholz always stressed that Germany would not support Ukraine on its own. Biden made no commitment during the negotiations, thus making it impossible to deliver not only American but also German tanks. At the Ramstein meeting, the Germans gave an evasive answer - they would have to "check their tanks in the depots" before deciding to hand over the tanks.

This story reflects some processes that are important for understanding how the modern world works.

Let us consider three questions.

First, why is Germany acting so timidly, showing its dependence on the United States? Second, what do the Americans try to achieve by blocking arms supplies to the AFU and then lifting the blockade? And thirdly, why do some Western countries dislike the position of Berlin and Washington and want to speed up the process of arms supply to Ukraine?

Let's start with Germany. Its behaviour is explained by German history after 1945. Germany was defeated and occupied after the Second World War. Its foreign policy (at that time its western part) was completely subordinated to the interests of the USA. The German leading parties, the bureaucratic apparatus, and big business adapted to this state of affairs over time. The German ruling class profited immensely from rebuilding the country from the ashes and developing a powerful export-oriented modern industry. It entrusted the care of the armed defence of Europe, the transnational production chains, and the international markets to the United States. More precisely, the Americans wanted it that way and the Germans adapted.

Making money from exports without incurring significant military expenditures, without engaging in risky military operations around the world, proved so profitable over time that the German upper class - the largest corporations and politicians - not only learned to live with it but began to block any manifestations of German nationalism or revanchism that would threaten their position. Dependence on America went from being a curse to being a bonus for the German ruling class. As a result, Germany not only lost its independence in foreign policy but also adopted a strange national ideology of collective guilt for the Second World War - guilt that supposedly extends to all generations of Germans. Paradoxically, the more time has passed since the war, the more national politicians have talked about the collective responsibility of all Germans. The paradox has a very concrete explanation - it is in the interests of those at the top.

And now that the world is calling for Germany to show its independence and become more and more involved in the conflict in Ukraine, the German ruling circles are horrified. They have never done anything like this since the Second World War, and they are certainly in a panic, not feeling the rather reliable support and protection of Washington behind their backs. After all, the US seems to be pushing them to supply tanks to Ukraine, while they themselves are afraid to do such a thing.

Suppose you have an older brother who has looked after you for a long time. He defended you in the street. Suddenly he says: 'Take your knife and give it to those kids over there who got into a fight, I'm not ready for that myself'. Such a statement will cause a shock...

Secondly, why doesn't the US want to provide the AFU with certain types of weapons?

The Americans explain their refusal to supply the tanks by saying that the logistics of the Abrams are not suitable for the armed forces or could pose a problem for them for technical reasons. Pentagon political adviser Colin Kahl, returning to Washington after a visit to Ukraine, said that Abrams deliveries were inadvisable because the tanks had "too complicated equipment" and were difficult to train on.

Washington seems to have chosen a neat way to block the delivery of Western tanks to Ukraine. The Americans know that Germany is willing to do this together with the US, but not instead of the US because the Germans are afraid to take responsibility alone for such strategic decisions that could change the situation on the front. By refusing to supply its own Abrams tanks to Ukraine, the Biden administration is at the same time blocking the supply of German tanks. The US has more than 6,000 tanks of this type, half of which are in storage. The delivery of 100 or 200 Abrams tanks is not a fundamentally unsolvable financial or logistical problem, but it will enable other deliveries of modern tanks to the AFU. The US can, but will not.

Claims about "technical difficulties" are as much nonsense as another statement from Washington about an alleged "shortage of shells in the USA". After claiming to have run out of shells, the Americans resorted to a drastic reduction in supplies to the AFU - immediately after the Ukrainian operations in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions. In fact, the US has retained a vast Cold War-era stockpile of cluster munitions (3 million units), as reported by the leading US-based Foreign Policy magazine. However, despite Ukraine's requests, the US refused for months to supply large quantities of ammunition, citing their "unavailability". They changed their mind only when the AFU had problems at Soledar.

Besides, shell production is one of the easiest types of military output and for a country like the US, ramping up this production cannot be a serious problem.

Going back to the issue of technical complexity - Abrams tanks are in service with a country as "highly developed and technically equipped" as Iraq (140 M-1A1SAs were delivered to Iraq in 2010-2011). Somehow the Iraqis have managed to master this sophisticated equipment. In this case, even the fact that Iraq is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International, did not embarrass the US. In addition, the Iraqi leadership is to a large extent associated with Washington's main rival, Iran, and is literally stuffed with agents of influence capable of transferring any technology to Tehran. Finally, the United States has been transferring a bunch of armored vehicles, including Abrams, to Poland recently, which means funds are also being sent there for their repair, supply, and other logistics.

So why is the US actually blocking tank deliveries to Ukraine?

The blocking of tank deliveries has a fundamental military-political significance. According to recent reports, the AFU is actually creating a new army in the rear - three new corps (12,000-15,000 servicemen each). Each corps is to include a tank brigade - about 100 tanks. These forces were intended for offensive operations and were probably intended to be equipped with German and American tanks. Blocking the supply of Western tanks means postponing major offensive operations by the AFU indefinitely.

It is curious that the US is going to block deliveries of tanks to Ukraine even though its actions are a serious anti-advertisement of US military equipment. After all, if one accepts that American tanks, unlike German ones, are so difficult to use and impossible to train on, or assumes that there are big technical and logistical problems with their use, then who and why needs such tanks that cannot be used properly and why should anyone buy them instead of the unpretentious and easy-to-operate German tanks?

The US wants neither a decisive victory for the AFU nor decisive victories for the RF Armed Forces. Their goal is an endless bloody quagmire, exhausting and sucking in the enemy, not anything else. US high-ranking officials constantly speculate about the danger of annoying the Kremlin, which possesses nuclear weapons (they regularly inform the Kremlin of their position through leading US publications). Because of the fear of Moscow's use of nuclear weapons, the US is extremely cautious. But at the same time, they do not want Moscow to win either, as it would be a collapse for the US-controlled system of international relations.

Hence the "bloody pendulum" goes on: the US restricts the AFU's ability to attack, but when the AFU has problems, as at Soledar, gives the Ukrainians additional weapons. Curiously, the US is now providing other weapons, worth billions of dollars, especially artillery and shells (which they allegedly didn't have). Washington wants to prolong the conflict indefinitely and turn it into a "new Afghanistan" for Moscow.

How long can the conflict last in such a case? As long as it takes. The conflict in Afghanistan lasted 10 years (1979-1989). As a result, the USSR was drained of costs and losses. The influence of the KPSS regime was undermined to a large extent by these events.

Could the US change its mind and start supplying tanks? Theoretically, yes, if it considers it necessary to change tactics. And this could happen in the foreseeable future.

The New York Times often features stories citing US officials and military personnel, and its voice reflects the mood of the US administration. On January 18, the paper published an article with the curious title: "US Ready to Help Ukraine Strike Crimea". The newspaper reported that the fear of US officials of a possible escalation by the Kremlin, which they keep informing the public about through this publication, is diminishing.

After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally beginning to think Kyiv might need weapons to strike Crimea, even if such a move would increase the risk of escalation, according to several US officials who spoke to the newspaper on condition of anonymity.

The newspaper also quoted a senior US official as saying that Ukrainian officials fear their country cannot survive years of protracted conflict while Russia continues to strike at Ukrainian infrastructure. Therefore, they see no choice but to target Crimea and put it at risk. The authors point out that the US leadership seems increasingly inclined to accept their arguments as their fears of a Russian response to such actions fade away.

This also has implications for changes in arms deliveries. During the conflict, the United States and its NATO allies, according to the newspaper, have steadily loosened the handcuffs they have put on themselves, moving from supplying Javelins and Stingers to modern missile systems, Patriot air defence systems, infantry fighting vehicles, etc. So, it is possible that over time it will come to tanks as well.

Thirdly, why do some countries want to support Ukraine more actively and are willing to provide it with a small number of tanks?

A group of countries has begun to lose patience with the actions of Washington and Berlin. And perhaps they will still manage to coax Germany in time. Poland, the Baltic states, and perhaps the Scandinavian countries, which are closer to the area of conflict, want to end it as soon as possible by providing the AFU with everything it needs.

The UK and, from a certain point in time, France, powers that consider themselves World War II victors and to a certain extent retain their independence in foreign policy, have started to see the passivity of the US and the FRG as an opportunity to prove themselves, expand their international influence and provide weapons to Ukraine, including tanks.

Finally, Türkiye is ready to supply the AFU with the latest weapons, based on its own considerations. Türkiye, a rising Middle Eastern power, is among the beneficiaries of the conflict - it receives Western support in exchange for arms supplies to Ukraine and a ban on Russia introducing additional military vessels into the Black Sea. But at the same time, Türkiye has not joined sanctions against Moscow and has become a gateway for Russian capital seeking foreign relations, receiving tens of billions of dollars in investments.

All of these have become influencing factors.

So there is a possibility that the UK and France could supply the AFU with tanks (London has already handed over 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Kyiv), and Türkiye could supply it with other critical weapons (who knows, maybe even tanks in the future?).

However, France and the UK each have a fleet of 400 tanks. It is difficult to expect them to supply a quarter of their tanks to the AFU. And even if they do, it will take a very long time.