Thread by @gloefflmann

“The USA possesses 2,833 active M1 Abrams MBTs with a further 3,500 in storage.” If the United States or Germany wanted to equip Ukraine with modern Western main battle tanks (if not absolute state of the art ones) they’d have the stockpiles to do so. uklandpower.com/2020/04/05/whe…

That no NATO country has so far supplied either MBTs or IFVs is a political decision not to enable Ukrainian offensive ops with Western frontline equipment. This seems motivated by a genuine concern that a) such a move would mean an escalation of the conflict w Russia and b) that

the capture or destruction of Western tanks on the frontline in Ukraine would provide Russia with an unwanted propaganda coup. Both these concerns can be criticised as either irrelevant or overblown, but they seems to guide military strategy and political decision-making for now.

The endlessly repeated debate over Leopard/Marder, either from Bundeswehr or German industry stock that starts up again whenever Berlin announces new weapons deliveries is therefore a mute point. Unless there is a strategic rethink on the level of the US/NATO to enable UKR

offensive ground operations directly with frontline military equipment, no such weapons from Western arsenals will be forthcoming. For the moment, I see neither in the White House, nor Downing Street No. 10, the Élysée, or the Chancellery any movement that would indicate such a

change of policy when it comes to militarily supporting Ukraine. The strategic and operational focus remains on strengthening Ukrainian defences and maintaining their ability to prevail in a war of attrition. The US and her NATO allies support a holding action and counter-attacks

e.g. on Russian artillery positions, ammunitions depots, command posts, logistics hubs, airfields, etc. But they don’t directly enable large-scale counter-offensives to break through the Russian lines and reconquer lost territory on a large scale. A strategic stalemate might

ensue after this first phase of the war, with Russia holding on to some if not all conquered territory (e.g. withdraw from Kherson). Only, the year-long process of wholistic Westernization and modernisation of the Ukrainian armed forces (e.g supply with 100 PzH-2000) would then

ultimately provide the necessary material foundations for the reconquest of the Donbass, and perhaps Crimea. If this is indeed the strategic calculus of the West, the expectation would be for Kyiv to hold out for now, but to leave the larger fight back for a much later date.

This is not an endorsement of policy btw, but an analysis of the political and strategic rationales that seem to guide Western decision-making vis-a-vis Ukraine on the issue of MBTs/IFVs. If you don’t like it, please go complain to the policy makers in charge.