An inevitable solution. How can German tanks change the conflict in Ukraine?
January 25, 2023.
After some hesitation, Germany finally agreed to send 14 Leopard tanks to Ukraine. Germany will also approve leopard exports by third countries.
Why the Germans resisted for so long, whether this means that now Ukraine can achieve the supply of any weapons, and how this may affect the Ukrainian conflict, aif.ru found out from the director of research of the Valdai Discussion Club, Fyodor Lukyanov.
Gleb Ivanov, aif.ru: Why did the Germans resist the supply of tanks for so long and why did they eventually agree?
Fyodor Lukyanov: The right question here is why they resisted for so long, because the whole logic of the events that took place spoke about the fact that they would eventually agree. I personally had no doubt about that.
They resisted, apparently, because Germany in the decades since the end of the Second World War has become accustomed to remaining away from world conflicts. And this status of pacifists was very convenient for the Germans. The fact that it will no longer be possible to remain in this status, the German authorities themselves understand. Olaf Scholz said at the beginning of the year that Germany would have to abandon its usual behavior in the international arena. But this transition, the revival of military consciousness in Germany, turns out to be very painful, which was demonstrated by the negotiations on the transfer of tanks to Ukraine.
However, each next step, I think, will now be easier for the Germans. And no matter what kiev asks for next – planes, helicopters – all this will now be transmitted to them faster in Berlin.
Gleb Ivanov, aif.ru: Ukraine for the first time received serious offensive weapons - tanks. Does this mean that kiev will now be able to get from the West any offensive weapons that it needs?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Since the Western countries have announced that the only way out of this conflict can only be a military victory for Ukraine, the logical conclusion from this is that they must supply any weapons necessary for Kiev.
However, these are general considerations, and then the specifics begin. There are many of these particulars, they also concern what is happening directly in the combat zone. And among all these particulars, one subtle point appears. Speaking about the supply of Western weapons to Ukraine, our officials from the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Ministry and other structures have repeatedly spoken about the "red lines", either already crossed by Western countries, or not yet. However, these words, according to Western politicians and analysts, are not followed by any steps on the part of Russia, which could call into question the continuation of arms supplies to Kiev. As they believe, Moscow for some reason either does not want or cannot take such steps. And if so, if there is no answer and the words remain words, then why should the supply be stopped?
Gleb Ivanov, aif.ru: In the end, the United States also agreed to supply Ukraine with a certain number of Abrams tanks, but a small one and almost next year. Why are the Americans withdrawing themselves from the process of arming Ukraine, highlighting countries such as Germany?
Fyodor Lukyanov: I wouldn't say they're self-eliminating. The United States has a unique opportunity to shift the burden of supporting Ukraine to its allies. And they take advantage of this opportunity. Americans have been telling their European allies over the past twenty years that they should contribute more to defense. The Europeans formally agreed, but in fact little changed. Now it's changing.
In addition, I am not at all an expert on military equipment, but there is still an understanding that the Abrams is an expensive weapon, stuffed with complex equipment, requiring serious maintenance. This requires trained specialists. And since Ukraine needs tanks right now, they are looking for options that are easier to provide, which could be delivered as quickly as possible.
Further, even the United States does not have Abrams in abundance. And any delivery of these machines to Ukraine will weaken the actual American security. In Ukraine, these tanks can fall into the hands of the Russian army, with all their stuffing and military secrets. This is something that Washington would very much like to avoid.
Finally, we are witnessing a gradual transition of Ukraine from the post-Soviet to the Western structure of government, the army. Now Ukraine is still using the remnants of Soviet reserves, but they are gradually being depleted. I think that the United States will take a fuller part in the rearmament of Ukraine at a later stage, when the remnants of Soviet weapons will finally be depleted, and the transition will enter its final stage.
Gleb Ivanov, aif.ru: At the Davos forum, Kissinger said that after the end of hostilities, Ukraine, whatever it remains, should be admitted to NATO. Many NATO members, primarily the Baltic countries and Poland, also support this. One of the goals of the SVO was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, because it threatens domestic security. Does this mean for Russia that the goal of the SVO should be the destruction of Ukraine as a state, since its remnants are going to be included in the alliance?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kissinger was talking about something else. He said that Ukraine, whatever it may be after this campaign, cannot remain in a neutral status. And in this he is probably right, because what kind of neutrality can we talk about after everything that has happened?
Ukraine, whatever remains of it after the end of hostilities, will obviously become a hostile state for Russia for a long time and will burn with the idea of revenge, creating great risks to domestic security. Even if not de jure, de facto it will increasingly become part of the North Atlantic security system. So yes, Russia should probably raise the issue in this way.
All the views expressed in, and at the source of, this article may not necessarily reflect those of T.E.A. Watchers.
Click article heading to go to article source.