Thread by @EHunterChristie

1/14
Those who follow the German discussion may have seen this article. The contents are accurate.
But the title *when shared on Twitter* is a serious falsehood: it says "NATO does not want to deliver tanks". Poland has delivered over 200.

tagesschau.de/inland/nato-sc…

2/14
Somebody at the public broadcaster decided that the original title "No tanks for Ukraine?" (see link) should be rendered on Twitter as "Informal agreement: NATO does not want to deliver tanks" (see tweet above).
A deliberately false statement in a headline for social media.

3/14
The contents of the article are accurate and carefully worded. It is clarified - correctly and importantly - that there are no NATO *decisions* on these matters, only informal consultations. And that each nation decides.
BILD and @JulianRoepcke were correct.

4/14
Important context is however missing from the article. Readers deserve to be reminded of the fact that Poland sent over more than 200 tanks. Knowing that, the logic that the govt says it has, and also attributes to other NATO Allies, falls apart.

5/14
Note this passage: (my translation)
"the existence of such an informal agreement was confirmed by GER govt sources (...) it is feared that Russia would deem the delivery of Western tanks and combat aircraft as an entry into the war"

6/14
Strange reasoning.
Poland sends tanks, fine.
But a different model of tanks = WW3?
Combat aircraft, this we do know from observation, no Ally crossed that line. Alright, that threshold is real.
But it looks like a creeping threshold: start with planes, throw in tanks?

7/14
Now go back to the attempt by the Permanent Secretary of the Def. Ministry to present the threshold of *Western* tanks *and IFVs* (more threshold creep) as something more formal than it is. Recall she implied going beyond it would be a matter for the North Atlantic Council.

8/14
We have now established that the Perm. Sec. was openly implying there is a need to do something that is in fact not required. Germany could send MBTs and IFVs right now, there is no need for a green light from the North Atlantic Council. So, what is Berlin up to?

9/14
What we have here is a reverse game of chicken with Vladimir Putin. In a game of chicken, team members egg each other on to be increasingly daring in the face of danger. In the reverse game, one participant seeks to be as timid as possible without being found out.

10/14
Step 1: split the group into two sub-groups, the daring (CEE Allies) and the big boys (US, UK, France)
Step 2: pretend the daring sub-group doesn't exist
Step 3: look for self-limitations in the big boys sub-group, construe and promote those self-limitations as group norms

11/14
Step 4: when challenged to do more, refer to the group norms that you have sought to create, and any other plausible narrative that justifies acting according to those invented norms.

12/14
I also contend that this pattern of behaviour has a longer and deeper lineage.
Since 1980, Germany (in green) has never been the largest European spender in current dollar terms and has tended to track France closely.
(Graph my own - data from SIPRI)

13/14
In the 1970s, however, there were years when Germany was the biggest spender. So GER doesn't always strictly self-limit based on comparisons with major Western Allies. Indeed, if Germany goes to 2% of GDP, this is likely to occur again, unless FRA & UK go to 2.5%-3%.

14/14
But CEE Allies are the new leaders now. And so it is high time that Germany matures to less convoluted thinking about its relative position within the Alliance.
Tips for Berlin: add Warsaw to the list of key capitals that define what is normal. And stop aiming low.