Stop stalling tanks deal, Nato allies tell Germany
Britain and US lead pressure campaign calling on Berlin to send heavy weapons
GERMANY must drop its opposition to sending tanks to Ukraine or Russia could gain the upper hand in the war, Nato allies warned yesterday.
Britain and the US were last night at the forefront of an international pressure campaign calling on Berlin, which holds the export licence for Leopard 2 tanks, to send them to Ukraine and allow other nations to do so.
Several European nations are hoping to promise the tanks to Ukraine at a summit today at the Ramstein air base in Germany. Britain has already committed to sending a squadron of 14 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, piling pressure on Berlin to follow suit.
Olaf Scholz, the German chancellor, has said that he will only send Leopard 2 tanks if America donates the equivalent Abrams from its arsenal.
Yesterday, a Pentagon spokesman said that it “doesn’t make sense” to provide the Abrams, with officials citing logistics challenges and the vehicle’s extraordinary fuel demands.
“Ultimately this is Germany’s decision,” Sabrina Singh said.
Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, sought to allay fears that Germany would be “going it alone” in sending tanks as he released a joint statement with eight other nations promising “unprecedented” weaponry for Kyiv, including battle tanks.
Meanwhile, Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, met Boris Pistorius, his newly appointed German counterpart, in an effort to break the deadlock.
It was unclear last night whether Mr Scholz would today agree to lift Berlin’s veto on other Ukraine allies exporting the Leopard 2 as part of the donations announced at Ramstein, Washington’s main air base in Europe.
At the Davos summit on Wednesday, Mr Scholz told US politicians that Germany was much more likely to bear any blowback from a move Russia deemed escalatory. He said that the US should take the lead as Germany relied on its nuclear deterrent, according to Politico.
Poland signalled yesterday that it could send the heavy armour without German approval, with Mateusz Morawiecki, the prime minister, saying Warsaw would. “We will either get [permission] quickly, or do what we see fit”.
Mr Morawiecki said that he was “sceptical” that Berlin would approve the transfer of the Leopard 2 because “the Germans are defending themselves against this like a devil protects himself against holy water”.
In an interview with German broadcaster ARD, Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, lost his temper when discussing Berlin’s hesitance.
“In plain language: can you deliver Leopards or not?” he said. “Then hand them over!” In an earlier speech in Kyiv, Mr Zelensky criticised Germany over its attempt to hide behind the US for not sanctioning the delivery of tanks.
“When someone says, ‘I will give tanks if someone else will also share tanks.’ I don’t think this is the right strategy to go with. The courage of our warriors… is not enough against thousands of tanks of [the] Russian Federation.”
Analysts say tanks are a crucial part of any combined-arms offensive to drive Vladimir Putin’s forces out of occupied territories in Ukraine’s east and south.
Officials in Kyiv fear that without the delivery of at least 100 tanks, they will be especially vulnerable to a fresh Russian assault in the spring. At a Ukraine donor conference in Estonia, Mr Wallace tried to reassure Berlin by saying Germany had provided Kyiv with “far more potent” weapons than tanks.
It comes as the Washington Post reported that William Burns, the CIA director, travelled in secret to Kyiv last week for a meeting with Mr Zelensky.
The meeting of Ukraine and its allies at the Ramstein air base in Germany today will discuss the whole paraphernalia of war. There will be pledges of howitzers and personnel carriers, air defences and mortar radars, ammunition consumption and rocket-propelled logistics chains: everything that Kyiv needs to continue its resistance against Russia’s invasion.
But one question will loom above all others: will Germany agree to send Leopard 2 tanks? Or at least allow other allies to re-export theirs?
The outcome of the entire war could ride on the answer.
“Basically, it is about being able to do the counter-offensive. Tanks mean we have a better chance to do a large-scale counter-offensive,” said Andrii Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian defence minister.
“And if we do not start a counteroffensive, the Russians will. They are preparing for a new offensive right now, and we cannot lose the initiative.
“That’s why we are quite openly saying: ‘Guys, help us now while Russia is weak.’”
In other words, Olaf Scholz’s refusal so far to release the Leopards is a battlefield decision. And not one favourable to Ukraine.
That does not mean he secretly wants Russia to win or the war to drag on, however.
The chancellor seems to be frozen by two contradictory urges: a desire for Ukraine to succeed and an aversion to becoming the first German leader since the Second World War to effectively authorise a blitzkrieg.
His indecision finds voice in his vow that Germany will not “act alone” – which so far has been an excuse for not acting at all.
The tragedy is that he must. Ukraine needs tanks soon, and it needs them in sufficient numbers to punch through the defences Russia has slashed into the tortured topography of the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
The Leopard 2 – plentiful, widely available in Europe, and easy to fuel and arm, is the only one that fits the bill. But only Germany makes the Leopard 2. Only Germany’s chancellor can sell them to Ukraine, or sign the export licences for others to do so.
Allies are trying to help. Britain’s decision to send 14 Challenger 2 tanks is meant to give Mr Scholz the political space to at least sign the export licences. But neither Joe Biden nor Rishi Sunak can make the choice for him.
Behind the Leopards looms an elephant: there is another, even bigger, question that no one wants to acknowledge. Does Germany – or the West in general – really want Ukraine to win the war? And if so, how?
Ever since the war began, Western officials have tiptoed around the question of how it ends.
The eloquent non-answer favoured by Western diplomats is that it is up to Ukraine to decide what victory looks like.
This, as many of them will happily acknowledge in private, is a cop-out. No one wants to talk about it, because no one wants to disagree in public.
Some countries, mostly on Nato’s eastern flank, are clear: Ukraine’s stated war aim of liberating every inch of its territory, including Crimea, is the only way to a lasting peace. They’re increasingly frustrated with more cautious allies.
The Leopards debate is not really about Crimea. But it has thrown fresh light on the lack of a common strategic vision for victory.
Thanks to Vladimir Putin’s intransigence and Ukraine’s convincing victories in Kharkiv and Kherson last year, that is beginning to change.
Slowly, the centre ground of Western thought is shifting from merely putting Ukraine into a stronger position at the negotiating table to actually pushing the Russians out of the country.
That brings the West a step closer to the strategic plan Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, has publicly outlined. “There was a problem even with the word victory,” said Mr Zagorodnyuk, reflecting on the change.
“The first Western guy to mention victory was Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, on April 26. But then it was toned down all the way to ‘Russia should not succeed’ or ‘Ukraine shouldn’t lose’.
“Now the situation is changing, and people we never expected are using the word. Like Macron. Macron is saying ‘victory’ all the time now.”
Western officials who do not want to discuss war aims often point out it is events on the battlefield that will dictate the shape of peace. They are right. But they are not passive observers. If they want Ukraine to win this battle, they can make it happen. Releasing the Leopards would be a start.