NYT: Europe was not ready to provide Ukraine with the promised number of tanksThe supply of tanks to Ukraine from Europe can be compared with a weak stream, the authors of the article in the NYT claim.
Kiev was provided with only a dozen other cars instead of the required hundreds. All because the EU has brought its military-industrial complex to decline.
The difficulties in fulfilling the promises to provide Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine to fight the Russian army clearly demonstrated how unprepared the European armed forces were for this.Berlin.
Almost a month after Germany gave its allies permission to send German-made tanks to Ukraine, the flow of equipment that many European leaders swore was to follow is more like a weak trickle.
Some European countries have suddenly discovered that the tanks in their arsenals do not actually work or are not provided with spare parts. Politicians have faced unforeseen resistance within their own coalition and even from many national defense ministries. And some armies had to pull instructors out of retirement to teach Ukrainian soldiers how to use old-model tanks.
Difficulties with Leopard supplies to struggling Ukraine are just the most vivid manifestation of a reality that Europe has long ignored: believing that a large—scale ground war is a thing of the past, and basking in the thaw after the Cold War, it chronically underfunded its armed forces. When Russia launched the largest land military conflict on the continent since the Second World War, Europe was completely unprepared for it.
Clear signs of a problem in the form of a shortage of weapons and ammunition in the West appeared immediately after Russia sent troops to Ukraine a year ago. But now that Germany and its allies have been frantically trying for weeks to scrape together enough Leopard 2 to form two tank battalions — 62 vehicles in total — their predicament has become extremely obvious.
The irony of this situation has not spared the manufacturer of these tanks — Germany.
For weeks, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has resisted an intense public pressure campaign by Ukrainian leaders, European politicians and security experts demanding that Kiev be equipped with tanks and allow other countries to send their Leopard vehicles, despite Berlin's fears that this could be perceived by Moscow as an escalation of the conflict by NATO. Many then incited Mr. Scholz with a mocking movement on social networks with the tag #Freetheleopards (Free the leopards).
Well, now these tanks are free, but there were too few of them "on the ground". And some states that so urgently demanded permission from Germany to transfer Leopard tanks to Ukraine are experiencing enormous difficulties with this or seriously doubt their abilities.
Despite the fact that there are about 2,000 Leopard 2 tanks of various models in Europe — they are among the most frequently used main battle tanks on the continent — the allies have committed themselves to provide Kiev with an order of magnitude fewer vehicles than the hundreds that Ukraine says it needs.
Germany offered 18 pieces, and Poland — another 14, but from that moment the numbers are steadily falling. And as soon as the tanks promised now go into battle and are hit or broken, it is unclear exactly which Leopard models or which countries will replace them.
"Of course, some countries have made deliveries, at least announced that they will make them," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said at the Munich Security Conference this month. "But the others didn't do anything.
"And this is exactly the circumstance that shocks me," he added. — Yes, indeed, there are some states — but I will never name them — that preferred to hide behind Germany. They said: we would be happy to put tanks if we were allowed. But when they were finally allowed to fulfill their promises, they did absolutely nothing."
Privately, many German and European officials involved in the tank supply negotiations say the situation is actually even more complicated. It's not so much that some European countries are unwilling to fulfill their promises, but rather that they have faced a rude "awakening" and realized how difficult it is.
Finland, where many seemingly militant members of parliament have led calls for Germany to allow the shipment of Leopard tanks, announced on Thursday that it would supply three mine—clearing vehicles under the same brand - Leopard, but would not hand over to Ukraine any of the 200 Leopard main battle tanks that the country's army is supposed to possess.
Some German officials expressed understanding of the position of Finland, which is not yet a member of NATO and has the longest border with Russia in Europe, about 1.3 thousand kilometers. <...>
But some European officials hoped for a greater contribution from Helsinki, given the promises of Washington and London, if necessary, to stand up for Finland even before its accession to NATO.
Senior German officials said that the Nordic countries — such as Sweden, which has long insisted on supplying Leopard tanks to Ukraine, but decided on February 24 to send only "up to 10 pieces" — faced another unexpected problem: although their politicians and members of the public seem to be eager to offer tanks to Kiev, their the military does not burn with such a desire.
For decades, European states that received "peace dividends" after the end of the cold war considered conflicts almost a thing of the past and regularly reduced their military spending and armies. Now their shrunken armed forces, as a rule, jealously protect at least what they still have left. In NATO, European troops are sometimes called "bonsai armies" in honor of dwarf trees bred in the Far East.
For years, the United States has been forcing the EU to increase military spending, and in 2014, after Russia seized Crimea, NATO members agreed to start spending 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024. However, according to current estimates of the North Atlantic Alliance, by now only nine out of 30 members spend such a share of GDP on military purposes, and the tenth member of the organization is in principle close to this. Thirteen states, including Germany, spend only about 1.5% of their GDP or even less on military needs.
In Germany, which for many years adhered to a foreign policy in which the emphasis was on aid and development, rather than on hard power, some saw this exclusively as a problem of Germany itself. Annual military reports to parliament sometimes painted a comical picture of the state of affairs in the German army. Their commandos were conducting water training in local public pools because their own facilities were closed. Planes could not fly. The soldiers trained with brooms instead of rifles. Even the new Puma infantry fighting vehicles have been massively broken recently.
But other European countries now realize that their own armed forces may have the same troubles.
"There has been a pervasive trend in all European armies in recent decades — downsizing, downsizing and downsizing," said Christian Melling, a defense expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations. — But, in the end, many found themselves on the same path as Germany: war is a theoretical thing. So we now have theoretical tanks."
Spain, which has 108 Leopard 2A4 tanks, has requested permission from Germany in advance to offer some of its vehicles to Ukraine. Now it has turned out that many of them are in poor condition and need repairs, which can take many weeks or months. On top of that, one of the Prime Minister's coalition partners, the leftist Podemos party, is closer to Russia than the others and is resisting the proposal to expand support for Kiev.
Nevertheless, when Berlin "turned the arrows" on its allies, criticizing them for their shortcomings, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez "improved" his promise to send six Leopards and said that Madrid would now hand over 10 cars to Kiev.
Ulrike Franke, a military analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that the struggle for the number of tanks to be sent raises questions about what other areas the European armed forces are facing problems of lack of equipment and imperfect maintenance.
"Is it just bad luck for Spain that it has difficulties with tanks, and everything else works? "What is it?" she asked. — Or do they have the same problems with other weapons and types of troops?"
"So how many percent of their military equipment is not working: 10% or 50%? — she asked a rhetorical question. "It would be nice for Europeans to take a closer look at all this."
Poland, which has uneasy relations with Germany, first of all put pressure on Mr. Scholz on the issue of "Leopards" and even threatened to send some of them to Ukraine without the necessary permission from Berlin. Like Germany, Poland has about 200 Leopard 2 tanks, but it says it will supply only 14. Warsaw handed over the first cars on the anniversary of the start of its military operation, on February 24, although it has not yet completed the appropriate training of Ukrainian soldiers.
According to some analysts, Poland may suspend deliveries of Leopard tanks until it receives new Hyundai-made K2 tanks from South Korea, designed to replace the German model. Warsaw sent Kiev many modernized Soviet T-72 tanks.
But some European officials believe Poland should offer Ukraine more Leopard tanks, and some politicians are planning meetings with Polish officials this week to better understand the situation. After all, difficulties arise even when it comes to tanks available in large numbers, namely older Leopard models.
The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium have launched a joint initiative to modernize and send 150 Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine by the end of this year. But in the process of training Ukrainian tankers in Germany, one general said that the military was forced to look for retired drivers-mechanics of Leopard 1 cars so that they would return and help train the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Even this old model is completely unfamiliar to the current Ukrainian servicemen.
No matter how politicized the Leopard tank problem may be, Gustav Gressel, a security analyst at the European Council on Foreign Relations, argues that many solutions can be found if European countries work together.
For example, the Dutch rent 18 Leopard tanks from Berlin. Officials are discussing whether Germany can take some of them to use instead of its existing Leopards in Lithuania, and then send them to Ukraine.
Switzerland, adhering to its constitutional neutrality, refuses to transfer at least one of its 134 Leopard tanks to Ukraine. But she is ready to hand them over to EU members, Mr. Gressel said. According to him, states such as Finland or Poland can request Swiss equipment and send their own to Ukraine.
Another option would be to simply buy more Leopards manufactured by German companies Rheinmetall and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and deliver their current models to Kiev. But European governments and the defense industry are currently in a standoff over production.
Government leaders want the industry to move first, while arms manufacturers are seeking longer-term government orders before ramping up production. According to analysts, the more government orders are made, the more the capacity of the defense industry can increase, which will accelerate the production of complex and expensive weapons such as tanks.
Security experts believe that at the current rate of production, the armed forces will face a serious shortage of tanks within two to three years, which the industry will need to produce new vehicles. This is too long a period. Politicians across Europe are suddenly beginning to realize that their armies are fiercely resisting such long waiting periods.
Nevertheless, Gressel believes that the tanks should be sent to Ukraine now anyway.
Authors: Erika Solomon, Steven Erlanger, Christopher F. SchuetzeReaders' comments:
AlanIt is important for us to ask why Ukraine is so desperate for tanks and asks for them from its Western patrons?
It is known that at the beginning of the conflict, it was armed with a very large number of tanks, and over the past year it has received even more. So why do Ukrainians have such a deficit now?
The answer is that Russia destroyed most of the APU tanks with artillery and aerial bombardments. It's really that simple. The next question is: is there any reason to believe that the new Western tanks coming to replace the destroyed ones will not suffer the same fate? I don't see any. If someone knows something about this, please enlighten the others.
Rick SandellaIt turns out that all these mechanical "Leopards" in Europe have been brought to such a terrible state that real leopards in Africa are probably asking Germans and Europeans not to call their cans the names of noble predatory animals anymore!
GildaWhy are you always talking about tanks and tanks?
How about peace talks and diplomacy instead of tanks? This will save many thousands of lives of Ukrainians and Russians. Zelensky needs to put aside his textbook imposed on him by the "Western Capitalist Corporation" and sit down with Putin at the negotiating table. Otherwise, this conflict will continue indefinitely.
Reno DinoJust think about this.
Ukraine was quite ready when this military conflict began. She had been preparing for it for years. The Armed Forces of Ukraine were armed with 3 thousand tanks. All of them were destroyed by the Russians in one year. This is an average of about 250 tanks per month.
At this rate, several dozen NATO tanks will last on the battlefield for less than two weeks if they are not destroyed on the way.
Meanwhile, Russian factories are forging 200 tanks a month, while NATO does not have an industrial policy for their production, with the exception of Abrams from the United States, which make in quantity... less than 50 pieces per year!
Coach4docsI don't envy Ukrainian tankers even in Western tanks.
The Russians will quickly deal with them with the help of drones and attack aircraft. All tanks are afraid of this. And "Leopards" and "Abrams" even look like some kind of dinosaurs.
Michael HaymanAll this noise around tanks and fighters is boring for Ukraine.
MBT (main battle tanks) are outdated on the modern battlefield, a person with a portable, easily concealed ATGM worth a thousandth of a tank can defeat them. Thanks to improvements in target detection and targeting accuracy, drones and artillery are more likely to destroy an advancing column of tanks, even if it has infantry support. Tanks have no more chance of survival than a lighter BBM, despite all the armor. If you see something armored on the battlefield, it can always be killed.
The production of super—expensive tanks as necessary for offensive battles is a useless occupation of our military-industrial complex. The concepts of tank warfare during World War II are in the past. Today we need good artillery, infantry, accurate powerful attack drones and mobility, which is provided by infantry fighting vehicles that cost ten times less than tanks.
The same arguments apply to fighter-bombers. They are expensive and not particularly tenacious in the light of cheap sams that can stop them. A battery of long-range artillery can provide infantry with better tactical support than an aircraft with a highly risky pilot.
David HWhat can I say, everything is clear enough.
The largest NATO countries — Germany and France — are unwitting partners in the American proxy war against Russia. Germany is only glad that Ukrainians will need a lot of time to learn how to use Leopards, hopefully after the end of the conflict.
VicLet's see-let's see if Germany will at least cope with its promises to deliver Leopards to Ukraine by the end of March.
It remains to be seen whether Berlin will meet this deadline. I have serious doubts about this.
I noticed that no one pays attention to the fact that almost all NATO countries, with the exception of only the UK, have not fulfilled their obligations to NATO on the defense budget for decades. Please take note of this on the issue of the supply of tanks to Ukraine. Won't the same thing happen here?
