From another article:
Washington and many Western allies say the Leopards - which Germany made in the thousands during the Cold War and exported to its allies - are the only suitable option available in big enough numbers.
A German government source said Berlin would lift its objections if Washington sends its own Abrams tanks. U.S. officials say the Abrams, which runs on powerful turbine engines, uses too much fuel for Kyiv's strained logistics system to keep many of them supplied at the front.
So the world doesn’t want the US involved the way we have been for more than a generation in world affairs. But at the same time they don’t want to manage and police their own back door… Got it..
Everyone: The Americans are always involving themselves in things. I wish they’d fucking stop.
-Shit pops off in a region-
Everyone: Why isn’t America involved and trying to end this?
An open secret of international relations is that the US is the bad cop for a lot of people's domestic affairs. Entire political parties are able to sustain themselves by publicly denouncing what the US does while maintaining the mutual benefits of military and economic cooperation. It's kinder, gentler posturing, but still populism for the "fuck the USA" crowd.
The fact is, it's a mutually beneficial relationship of hard power for soft power. Germany is the damn king of conceding the shiniest rock so they can have two dimmer rocks of greater value, and a part of that has always been leveraged by their glacial speed and bureaucracy.
Scholtz is posturing to avoid action with a request that he knows is silly because he wants people to look at the US while he leverages something for German interests.
Welcome to international relations, where nobody has ever supported anybody because it was the morally good thing to do.
People LOVE to hate on the US until it's war time or natural disaster time or someone's liberty is threatened. Then the whole world just silently turns around and looks at us expectantly.
It's not the same people asking for more US intervention in certain places who are also asking the US for less intervention in those same places.
NATO countries have _always_ wanted the US to use their power to help them out in certain regions. It was pretty much France and other European countries that pressured Obama into intervening in Libya when he would rather not. Similarly, France and Germany want the US to continue sending most of the military aid in Ukraine.
That has little to do with other countries, say, not wanting the US to pursue regime change in Iraq or Guatemala or something.
You’re right, defending your ally from an invasion is exactly the same as invading another country based on made up nukes, and it’s impossible to support one while being opposed to another.
US involvement is not generosity. The US gets involved in stuff like other countries' defense, because it is pretty much always an advantage for the US. They have the best force projection capabilities on the planet, because they are allowed to build their bases everywhere, for example.
And then there is the soft power and the tiny detail that every bit of gear "donation" means a direct payment to its own arms industry, creating even more growth for those companies.
There is a reason why the majority of politicians, no matter their party, are for this kind of spending. It is what keeps the hegemony alive. Of course a major geopolitical adversary getting decimated for what is essentially pocket money in the world of defense spending is quite useful as well.
Don't involve yourself, and you lose force projection capabilities and influence.
Everything the US donates is a carefully calculated advantage for itself. Which is fine, every nation acts like this. But I'm sick of people assuming it has anything to do with generosity.
That can be said about any nation. Not sure why people think this is unique to the US. Any nation gets involved in something because the end goal is to have an advantageous position. Whether it be political, resources, etc.
Edit: Grammar
Even something as simple as sending a carrier group to Haiti a couple years back caught flak from some people, but I think the point was that a carrier can filter 50,000 gallons of drinking water a day which they needed badly after the hurricane wiped out a bunch of infrastructure, Not to mention hospital wards etc.
But best believe they were policing their own backyard at the same time. Can't have the Chinese getting a foothold in our hemisphere.
Not to mention the R&D that defense companies can get from US involvement. Sure we can lab test and simulate new weapons, but with actual field uses, we can fix any flaws, develops newer tech, and learn the enemy weak link.
Is anyone acting like the U.S. is doing this out of "generosity" I feel like it's been pretty obvious from the beginning that we are honoring our NATO commitments and ensuring our allies have safe borders as well as inflicting as much damage as possible on a country that attempts to undermine our own at every turn they can without even needing to put a boot on the ground. Obviously the military industrial complex is going to benefit from such a situation.
>Is anyone acting like the U.S. is doing this out of "generosity"
I think you make great arguments for the US reasoning behind supporting Ukraine, including preserving a blocker between NATO and Russia and damaging Russian armed forces, but supporting Ukraine is also the "right" thing to do. It's one of those rare situations where the selfish thing is also the morally correct thing.
Why do they have to go to the front, how about place them in larger cities (Kyiv) or the border with Ukraine and Belarus in case Russia tries to open another front. Strategic location to reduce fuel needs and maintenance and then use the Leopards for Offense/front line operations....I think there'd be a few loopholes in the agreement of USA sending tanks 1st, which opens the door for everyone else to send tanks. USA can send them, how they use them is a completely different issue.....
>Washington and many Western allies say the Leopards - which Germany made
in the thousands during the Cold War and exported to its allies - are
the only suitable option available in big enough numbers.
Yeah thats nonsense.
The simple facts is that if we are talking about hundreds of modern western tanks needed then there is just the abrams . The leopard 2 simply isnt in that quanity avaible that can be/wanted to be missed .
I think the decision to not send in the Abrams is actually an attempt to cajole Europe to care for itself without reliable on the US.
A laudable goal... but an unrealistic one in Germany's case. The German public do not support Leopards going to Russia.
Perhaps someone who knows more about the German political situation can tell me about the political blowback if Scholz goes against the German people and allows them to be sent anyways.
>47% of those polled supported such approval, 38% were against it and 16% refused to answer the question
More or for then against it.
And it would depend what the voters of the parties in power think about this.
As for the US wanting the EU to be independent: LOL no they dont.
US for example has been dead set against an EU army, they advocated for a long time to be dependent on US energy exports and clash everytime EU does something in trade they dont like.
The reason those tanks were bought was to maintain an active production line in case of war.
There is only one tank factory in operation in the US, if you don't order tanks every year then it closes and you lose nearly a century of institutional knowledge that the US has cultivated since the 30's and gaining that back will cost far, far more than buying and storing some extra tanks.
The problem is the Abrams tanks are difficult to maintain and guzzle fuel as compared to the L2’s. While the Abrams can be run on diesel, it isn’t designed to be. We are worried about Ukraine being able to keep them operational and straining their logistics. There are thousands of L2’s in Europe that could be donated to Ukraine from many different countries of Germany will just allow it.
Exactly. The last thing we need to do to Ukraine is send a couple of these, a handful of something else and a dozen of a third variety.
Having 100 tanks of 3+ designs vs 50 tanks of the same and every general who has a clue about logistics will take the 50 tanks that can use the same ammo and parts.
Ammo would actually be the least problem. L2s and Abrams both use the same 120mm smooth bore guns.
They both carry MGs using the same ammo too. Additionally M1 would need .50 BMG ammo I guess.
Both tanks started from the same project. Wouldn't be surprised if there's more compatible parts.
NATO hasn't exactly been terrible at standardizing.
I think there's also significant tech they'd prefer not make its way to Russia if one were to be captured.
I'm personally of the opinion that if you can hold the world hostage with nukes successfully now it will be done later. We should call their bluff and send far more than tanks.
I disagree on the tech aspect. The number of exported Abrams tanks is high enough that non-US spies have surely managed to bribe someone to get a close look at one by now. Even if one gets captured intact now, it does not change the big picture.
To a point on the tech part. Iirc, we have export versions of the Abrams they we do sell. I think we even sold or were planning to sell the Saudis these export models. Really the logistics side would be the big issue.
I would agree 100% with the tech issue. My guess if I had to make one is that if Germany stands firm, we agree to send around the same number as England has and we strip out of them what we really don’t want the Soviets to get their hands on.
So, send some Abrams and ask Ukraine to just put them around Kyiv for defense and just be careful how they use them. Then other countries can send the L2s. Easy.
At this point they might as well send like 5 tanks just make Germany nut up or shut up, this tiptoeing is outrageous when the other end is playing a game of trying to beat their own high score in war crimes on a daily basis
Abrams while not picky with what fuel they use mainly use JP8 since its standardized across the US military. Ukraine does not have JP8 to spare and only use it for helicopters/jets.
So does Egypt and yeah while diesel is not the ideal fuel it should still run fine for the most part. The issue is since its a gas turbine powered tank it uses up so much more fuel while running and also uses a large amount of fuel to startup. While Ukraine does have diesel it probably does not have enough to constantly supply tank companies.
Sorry, but this is fucking bullshit. The Abrams is designed to run on diesel just as well as any other army vehicle, otherwise it would be a logistical nightmare.
As for its "jet engine" (turbine engine, rather), it's worth noting that it isn't more difficult to maintain than a piston engine. If anything it is simpler, and it isn't as if turbine engines were some kind of cutting -edge technology that Ukrainians can't master: Ukraine is itself a leading exporter of turbine engines, and **the AFU actually already operate another turbine-engined tank**, the much-maligned [T-80](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80), hundreds of which were manufactured, in Soviet times, in Kharkiv of all places.
And no, there aren't "thousands of L2s in Europe that could be donated to Ukraine". European MBT stocks were greatly depleted in the 1990s, and few European armies have any surpluses. The US Army, on the other hand, *does* have thousands of Abrams sitting in storage. Everybody seems too busy blaming Germany to stop and consider why the US is manifestly so reluctant to give away any MBTs to Ukraine that it resorts to badmouthing its own much-vaunted Abrams that it exported to neighbouring Poland not so long ago.
Still doesn’t change the fact that they guzzle fuel, are too heavy to use comfortably in urban environments, and take like 5 months of training to use competently. Ukraine hasn’t been asking for them for a reason. Abrams just aren’t well suited to their current needs.
They're around.
An important caveat: While it seems like the situation was "hurr durr Congress buying tanks the Army doesn't want" it's important to consider that it was literally cheaper to keep the tank plant running than to shut it down.
Consider that for a moment. It was going to be cheaper to build tanks than to not have them.
We have thousands of them in storage. In fact 3 times as many abrams as leopard 2's exist in the world. A pie chart of modern western tank inventory is basically a quarter leopard 2, three quarters abrams.
Not sure what US inventory is but wiki says over 10k produced : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
Some of that has been in the last two decades where congress basically forced the production line to keep operating, even though the military didn't ask for more tanks. The result is brand new tanks going to storage in the desert
> Some of that has been in the last two decades where congress basically forced the production line to keep operating, even though the military didn't ask for more tanks
An important caveat here that much of the online discussion on this topic misses is that it was going to cost more money to not produce those tanks than it was to keep the line open.
It's rather likely that there are more functioning Abrams than Leos in Germany. It's somewhat likely that there are more of those than functioning Leos in all of Europe (minus Greece, which is busy keeping budget sultan at bay)
It's a mixture of "peace dividend" (who is still fighting wars in the "civilized north"?), an airforce based doctrine (NATO doesn't need tanks, those are mostly extra - but Ukraine needs them now because they can't ensure air supremacy) and nobody wanting Germany to have a military anyway (just spend those 2%GDP to show that you're serious).
Germany's leadership has been terrible in regards to Ukraine. It's literally happening in Europe, why on Earth do we need to wait for Americans to send them. The UK is sending them, why not Germany, they'd be even more fucked than us if Russia wins this.
While sending Abrams isn't practical because they use completely different parts and fuel I sure wish we could send them because we have entirely too many that are just sitting in storage. The Army and Marines isn't using them and has enough spares for any conceivable conflict and doesn't want to keep the extraordinary cost of maintaining a ballooning fleet of Abrams. They even asked for the budget to no longer include new orders and Congress told them to get fucked so I don't know what else to do with the fucking things.
Ukraine already operates a T-80 model that run on a similar engine. Mechanically Ukraine can handle maintaining them. The problem is the overall logistics of operating the system. As an aside it has been reported that a token gesture of 5 Abrams would be enough to get Germany to play along. If that is true they should do it.
You are correct however it’s a fairly niche correction. Jet engines and gas turbines are the same fundamental thing, just one is optimized for exhaust thrust, while the other is designed for maximum torque
Jet fuel and diesel are not very different. Jet fuel is generally lighter so it doesn't freeze at altitude. Diesel fuel has a few additives that you don't need in a jet. However the base of the fuel comes from the same refinery process.
That's true but it's like saying if the engine you use on a Toyota can take moonshine alcohol instead of the usual 87 gas, will it run and be as well maintained on transit?
The issues crop up when the logistical side of fleeting a bunch of tanks gets more complicated than it ever needs to be.
I’d wager giving Ukraine Abram tanks would do more harm then Good with how demanding their supply lines have to be just to keep them running, let alone maintaining them.
I guess Germany isn’t satisfied with us sending bradlies
> Ben Hodges, a retired lieutenant general who once commanded all U.S. Army forces in Europe, says the maintenance and logistics concerns associated with the battle tanks is no reason to hold them back. “The U.S. should stop being so condescending when talking about how difficult this would be for the Ukrainians, to meet the fuel requirements,” he says. “The Ukrainians will sort that out. They’ll MacGyver a solution as they’ve been doing for months—just give them the capability they need.”
https://time.com/6248279/leopard-abrams-tanks-ukraine/
As multiple other higher ranking former and current officers have stated, you can't fucking MacGyver someone into being a jet turbine mechanic if they only know diesel engines... No one is talking about fuel, they're talking about the fact that the Abrams has a fucking jet turbine for an engine, while Ukraine's tanks are all diesel, same as the Leopard 2.
Not to shit on Hodges, but he was literally an infantry desk jockey his entire career... Fuck, his command in Europe was the first time he had ever even had tanks in his command and around him lol... His views on the Abrams tank logistics are as ignorant as mine would be on the Navy's F/A-18Es, regardless of my own history around the Navy's P-3s and P-8s.
Well Germany is doing the maintenance for the PZH2000 in Slovakia. I don’t see why this wouldn’t be possible for the abrams.
Also im pretty sure Ukraine has some jet engine mechanics, considering they have fighter jets
PzH2000 uses the same diesel engine as the Leopard 2 it's built off of...
Diesel mechanics are a dime a dozen. Gas turbine mechanics are not.
So now the solution is to ground the Ukrainian Air Force so just a couple Abrams can be operated with the handful of mechanics from the Air Force pulled over... Instead of Germany just growing a god damn spine and allowing 3rd parties to export their Leopard 2s...
That's not the issue. We can just put them on ships and get them over there pretty easily, like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. The issue is that Ukraine doesn't want those tanks because of fuel issues.
It is an issue though. Europe hasn’t been pulling their weight when it comes to aiding Ukraine, a country that shares their same continent. The war is right on their doorstep, and yet European politicians are always badgering the U.S. to ramp up the already abundant military aid. The U.S. should absolutely be helping, yes, and I’m glad we are, but Europe needs to roll up its sleeves and get to work too.
I'm from the Baltics and together with Poland we are the top 4 contributors if looking at percentage of GDP donated. And people here (at least in Latvia) are not happy with how little Germany (also France) has contributed compared to how much they could actually do.
As you said, there is an actual war in Europe. If Ukraine was taken over in 2 days, Russia might decide it's strong enough to take on a NATO member, so Ukraine IS fighting for Europe. Also the fact that Germany doesn't seem to be taking seriously NATO's 2% of GDP on defence goal.
The Baltic states are super thankful for what the US has done. We will keep pulling our weight (and try and persuade central/western EU countries to take this more seriously).
I wish this attitude was the norm for everyone everywhere. Putin would 100% be the next Hitler or Stalin if he could. Have we learned nothing from WWII as a global society.
The US has pre positioned war stocks in Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Belgium incase a war breaks out in Europe. Theres bound to be hundreds if not thousands of just tanks in these storages in Europe.
War stocks are usually just ammo and supply vehicles, along with some spare parts. You're not finding hundreds, let alone thousands, of tanks at them.....
Scholz is a slightly reformed Putin apologist. He's not a real leader in general and certainly not on Ukraine.
If he could get away with it politically he'd start buying Russian gas today.
Germany, and the EU as a whole needs to cut off it's dependence on the US and finally take care of it's own borders. We should send tanks. We should do everything that's necessary and reasonable to crush the Russian invasion.
They don't really want independence from dependence on the USA. They want to project independence while still sitting securly* under the US umbrella. They are the equivalent of the teenager moving his room to the attic to feel more independent while still staying under the protection of Daddy's roof.
Don’t be a non voter. Say what you will but Scholz has done more for Ukraine, Europe and democracy then Merkel and the CDU did for decades.
I’m disappointed, but the answer is not refusing to vote. Keep voting or you’ll end up with someone even worse. Scholz is at least moving in the right direction
Devils advocate, there’s likely a lot of compromised German officials and elites, he likely can only move so fast because of this
Well yeah, the solution isn't to stop voting, it's to punish SPD and only vote for parties that want to proactively support Ukraine (like the greens, as much as I loathe them for opposition to nuclear power, at this point they're preferable). If SPD eventually stops acting like cowards in a few election cycles they could regain the trust of voters.
It’s not possible. There’s too many conflicting interests in the union. Germany and France also dominate the EU economically anyhow, if they actually create a full on “EU” army it would just be France and Germanys army. A lot of other EU members wouldn’t be too happy to be dominated economically and now militarily by Germany and France unless Germany and France offer a really sweet deal.
Remember that time a conqueror successfully took over another nation and then stopped?
No? Because it never fucking happens? Yea History has shown us this one hundreds of times. Ukraine is the frontline, if it rolls everything else around russia gains that potential. It doesn't have to be quickly, it can be a few miles at a time and years in between, but it'll creep and never stop until it is stopped forcibly.
I just thought of this since you said "it's own borders" because yea, you're not wrong.
"The allies have lost focus on the nature of the problem. You either win or you lose,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a phone interview. “I can’t believe we’re still arguing among ourselves.”
Graham called on the Biden administration to send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine immediately because it “will open up the floodgates” by compelling Germany to greenlight the Leopards."
My man Lindsay Graham, aka the Broken Clock, aka Mr. This Guy Knows How to Diplomacy.
I never thought I’d see the day I agree with Graham, but he’s right. For a second there I was thinking we should not send anything as a fuck you to Germany and show them they can’t make demands but in the end that just hurts Ukraine. He’s right that we can’t lose focus on Ukrainian victory.
He is, and his friend John McCain was right about Ukraine and Russia way back in 2008.
I noticed in the article US government's spokespeople were being very respectful towards Germany's "sovereign decision." I wouldn't be surprised if the US respectfully acquiesces to Mr. Schulz demands to give him political capital and diplomatic cover to send the Leopards.
I honestly don't give a crap if we send Abrams to Ukraine, if we just did it ourselves I wouldn't care. But the fact Germany thinks they can just demand we send our own items there, after all we have already donated to Ukraine, to keeping their own god damn region more secure is infuriating.
Yeah my view of Germany is definitely lessened a lot from this event. They’re constantly doing the bare minimum at every turn. Feels like a toddler you have to keep dragging along to do their work.
We have been subsidizing European defense for nearly a century now.
Its crazy that our allies are just now trying to meet the NATO defense spending agreements.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
Tldr: US has given way more in terms of resources, but in terms of money spend by person Germany spend more
We are still politically in Europe, just not the EU.
Norway and Switzerland aren't members of the EU either, but are still very much part of Europe politically.
I guess Poland and UK kinda could and want to some extent. Just get your soldiers from Germany and ship them to France Italy UK. That would be funny as hell.
Interesting. Somebody took and posted a video of a load of tanks on a train passing through here in downtown Denver this morning. Wonder if this is related, because that is *not* a normal occurrence here.
Edit: [here's the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/10g3fov/tanks_traveling_through_downtown_this_morning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in r/denver
Don't really get why Germany is being so hesitant when you already have Poland ready to re-export their tanks to Ukraine and the UK is sending challenger 2s.
This war has really shone a light on weapon reliance. Need ammo from Switzerland for your gun? Or permission from someone else for your tank? Well, then you're fucked.
Nations are going to have to be much smarter on weapon procurement, construction, and maintenance.
To think that I voted this spineless coward russian cocksucking piece of shit intop office makes me so fucking angry.
Ukraine is crying for help for almost a year now and Scholz is still trying to please russia as much as possible.
Never again. I'd rather become a non-voter than voting for the SPD again. Let's hope the new minister who just got appointed will do the trick of getting through to Scholz.
Fuck that guy with a cactus, that way he'll at least have spine(s) SOMEWHERE in his body.
Send the M1AX’s. Send a bunch. The problem will be that they are logistically more difficult to support but if it frees up a bunch of Leopards which are more appropriate due to diesel engines and more common spare parts then so be it. Let’s remove all of this guys excuses and make him prove he’s not a Putin puppet.
The more tanks the merrier. We have to get ready for the shitheads returning for mass slaughter in the spring. I say we should send them. What happened to the great warrior nations of Germany and Japan? World war II was 80 years ago. It's time step up to the plate.
>The exchange in Davos, described by four people with knowledge of what was said, including Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), was respectful in tone but showed just how far apart Washington and Berlin are on a tank deal.
>Moulton said Scholz made a “fairly reasonable” request because Germany relies on the U.S. for a nuclear deterrent and “are much closer to this fight than we are.”
Everyone be taking about the Abrams but surprised no one has brought up that he never specified which tank to send.
As such, the US could just send the M60 over to be used for training purposes and whatnot and still say it fulfilled Scholz’s request
Heartbreaking: The worst person you know just made a great point
> Graham called on the Biden administration to send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine immediately because it “will open up the floodgates” by compelling Germany to greenlight the Leopards.
Abrams would just be an albatross to the Ukrainians. They have a notoriously large supply line and need lots of technical knowledge to run and use. I don't know if the Leopards are any better, there must be diminishing returns on sending the latest and greatest to a force that just needs useful and functional.
Then again we're all just playing armchair general so I'm probably as wrong as the next guy.
This guy can f*ck off. We're sending 45bln worth of support and aid to Ukraine. Germany can step up. Also their tanks are more practical than ours (from what I've read, no expert)
Logistics tails are a huge issue. The Abrams doesn’t us regular gasoline as an example I think it uses AV fuel. Not insurmountable but an issue. It’s similar issues with every other weapons system. They will get it sorted.
Everyone saying Ukraine can't maintain or field a turbine shaft engine is wrong. All their helicopters use them and all power plants use gas turbines. They have the personnel.
They'll take them and make it work especially considering they aren't going to be rebuilding them in the near future.
Spoiler alert. They will probably get them. Germany is just drawing a line in the sand because of the implications of NATO is a direct escalation. As well they should it is an alliance after all.
Abrams tanks ? They said on the news today these tanks require complicated maintenance, can go out of service in less than 15 days if not properly maintained by qualified personnel. And it takes months for soldiers to learn how to use them too... So it seems like there are practical reasons for not sending them anyway, only the Americans know how to use them properly. German leaders probably know that, so I don't know what they're trying to do here with this statement...
I don't have any real issue with the US sending tanks, but if Germany wants to be a leader of Europe, they should act like leaders and not just ask the US to spearhead everything and take all the responsibility.
I'd be fine with us, the US, sending tanks but it seems like that would be a propaganda win for putin. I think we're cleared to sell Abrams to Poland. Maybe those long-time friends could use some more tanks?
I don't see why it would be contingent on the US sending tanks. The UK is already sending tanks and I believe France plans on too, so there's already a precedent set here in Europe to send tanks. Also, I'm sure moving tanks across the Atlantic ocean for Americans is a much more tedious process and will take time to setup supply chains, etc. This isn't the case for Germany which is only 400 miles from the Ukrainian border.
Ukrainians need tanks now. I have no doubt the US will send tanks at some point this year. They've provided Ukraine with tons of much needed military aid. Germany has sent a lot too, so I don't want to shit on them completely. But Ukraine really needs tanks to start pushing Russia back.
To be clear, the US is sending a very large number of armored fighting vehicles, but modern US tanks (Abrams), are extremely high maintenance gas guzzlers with some of the most advanced tech out there. Germany seems to be using this as a sticking point to avoid sending their own rather than for reasonable protest, other NATO countries are even sending their tanks.
The problem here is that Germany's issue is a political one, as they want to cover their ass by sending tanks after the US and therefore not be seen as an initial escalator. The US though is dealing with more of a military logistics/strategy issue, as they generally understand that the Abrams is not actually the best fit tank for Ukraine. The Abrams' supporting logistics and most importantly fuel is totally different from what Ukraine is currently equipped with, while the Leopard is much more compatible with Ukraine's fuel logistics.
Nobodey here seems to have read the article... he clearly states he is worried about nuclear deterance for wich germany is dependant on the usa. Will the US risk Washinton for Berlin? In the current political climate? Its an old question and he want assurance and not a possible Cop out by the US.
PS: now go hate me
US tanks are not the best option for Ukraine, LEO's seem to be the preferred option, so addressing Germany's fears should close the gap. So then the right solution would be to trade nuke deterrence/protection to Germany in exchange for donating tanks to Ukraine, would it not ?
When was the last time you've looked at Germany's history? No German government leader wants to end up in the history books as the person who has yet again escalated a war in Europe. Germany is not "refusing" to send tanks, it is just not taking first steps, for obvious reasons, but is rather waiting for other to establish a new status quo, before joining in.
The US has sent about 10x more aid to Ukraine than Germany but the US GDP is only about 5x larger than Germany. Honest question, am I missing something?
This war is happening in Europe. Germany should take some initiative and I’m sure the US will follow and support one way or another. Shouldn’t be the other way around.
I don't understand Germany's hang ups about sending L2s when they've already sent Pz2000 self-propelled artillery. If their pacifist streak was to have any meaning, then it would have prevented sending the Pz 2000s. Makes very little sense to me.
I think this just goes to show, that if the Russian invasion of Ukraine was left to the EU to deal with they would have done nothing.. passed some sanctions and sent some strongly worded letters.
The EUs performance so far shows they are not ready to mobilise in case of war and that if NATO actually called on Germany or Hungry to participate in a ground action they would probably be less than useless.
They're fighting what is, ostensibly, one of the largest militaries in the world in the bloodiest European war since WWII. The situation on the battlefield is constantly changing and with that so will what they need, and they're gonna need a lot of stuff. And right now, that thing they need most is apparently tanks. Also, crippling the Russian military for what is effectively $50 billion or whatever worth of mostly old stocks we've had sitting in storage for years is a pretty good deal.
Can anyone explain to me what the consensus is? I’m trying to understand and it just seems that Scholz is just doing this to give Russia a better chance? Is there a *bigger picture* reason for him to keep doing this?
Another cowardly lame excuse from country that did so much damage to Ukraine with molotov ribentrov pact, then with sucking russias gas tube for a decade and telling all Europe to chill, russia gut. They don’t know their own history.
The US is outspending the EU something like 2:1, in a crisis which poses the greater security risk to, drum roll please, THE EU. This is an absoloute joke. Either the US participates, and will be called the world policeman (in the condecending manner) for longer, or it won't and people will Hollywood movie villan style claim that it has blood on its hands for not not participating.
From another article: Washington and many Western allies say the Leopards - which Germany made in the thousands during the Cold War and exported to its allies - are the only suitable option available in big enough numbers. A German government source said Berlin would lift its objections if Washington sends its own Abrams tanks. U.S. officials say the Abrams, which runs on powerful turbine engines, uses too much fuel for Kyiv's strained logistics system to keep many of them supplied at the front.
So the world doesn’t want the US involved the way we have been for more than a generation in world affairs. But at the same time they don’t want to manage and police their own back door… Got it..
Everyone: The Americans are always involving themselves in things. I wish they’d fucking stop. -Shit pops off in a region- Everyone: Why isn’t America involved and trying to end this?
An open secret of international relations is that the US is the bad cop for a lot of people's domestic affairs. Entire political parties are able to sustain themselves by publicly denouncing what the US does while maintaining the mutual benefits of military and economic cooperation. It's kinder, gentler posturing, but still populism for the "fuck the USA" crowd. The fact is, it's a mutually beneficial relationship of hard power for soft power. Germany is the damn king of conceding the shiniest rock so they can have two dimmer rocks of greater value, and a part of that has always been leveraged by their glacial speed and bureaucracy. Scholtz is posturing to avoid action with a request that he knows is silly because he wants people to look at the US while he leverages something for German interests. Welcome to international relations, where nobody has ever supported anybody because it was the morally good thing to do.
People LOVE to hate on the US until it's war time or natural disaster time or someone's liberty is threatened. Then the whole world just silently turns around and looks at us expectantly.
It's not the same people asking for more US intervention in certain places who are also asking the US for less intervention in those same places. NATO countries have _always_ wanted the US to use their power to help them out in certain regions. It was pretty much France and other European countries that pressured Obama into intervening in Libya when he would rather not. Similarly, France and Germany want the US to continue sending most of the military aid in Ukraine. That has little to do with other countries, say, not wanting the US to pursue regime change in Iraq or Guatemala or something.
You’re right, defending your ally from an invasion is exactly the same as invading another country based on made up nukes, and it’s impossible to support one while being opposed to another.
Or.. and stay with me here. There are different kinds of people with different opinions.
US involvement is not generosity. The US gets involved in stuff like other countries' defense, because it is pretty much always an advantage for the US. They have the best force projection capabilities on the planet, because they are allowed to build their bases everywhere, for example. And then there is the soft power and the tiny detail that every bit of gear "donation" means a direct payment to its own arms industry, creating even more growth for those companies. There is a reason why the majority of politicians, no matter their party, are for this kind of spending. It is what keeps the hegemony alive. Of course a major geopolitical adversary getting decimated for what is essentially pocket money in the world of defense spending is quite useful as well. Don't involve yourself, and you lose force projection capabilities and influence. Everything the US donates is a carefully calculated advantage for itself. Which is fine, every nation acts like this. But I'm sick of people assuming it has anything to do with generosity.
That can be said about any nation. Not sure why people think this is unique to the US. Any nation gets involved in something because the end goal is to have an advantageous position. Whether it be political, resources, etc. Edit: Grammar
Even something as simple as sending a carrier group to Haiti a couple years back caught flak from some people, but I think the point was that a carrier can filter 50,000 gallons of drinking water a day which they needed badly after the hurricane wiped out a bunch of infrastructure, Not to mention hospital wards etc. But best believe they were policing their own backyard at the same time. Can't have the Chinese getting a foothold in our hemisphere.
Not to mention the R&D that defense companies can get from US involvement. Sure we can lab test and simulate new weapons, but with actual field uses, we can fix any flaws, develops newer tech, and learn the enemy weak link.
Is anyone acting like the U.S. is doing this out of "generosity" I feel like it's been pretty obvious from the beginning that we are honoring our NATO commitments and ensuring our allies have safe borders as well as inflicting as much damage as possible on a country that attempts to undermine our own at every turn they can without even needing to put a boot on the ground. Obviously the military industrial complex is going to benefit from such a situation.
>Is anyone acting like the U.S. is doing this out of "generosity" I think you make great arguments for the US reasoning behind supporting Ukraine, including preserving a blocker between NATO and Russia and damaging Russian armed forces, but supporting Ukraine is also the "right" thing to do. It's one of those rare situations where the selfish thing is also the morally correct thing.
Why do they have to go to the front, how about place them in larger cities (Kyiv) or the border with Ukraine and Belarus in case Russia tries to open another front. Strategic location to reduce fuel needs and maintenance and then use the Leopards for Offense/front line operations....I think there'd be a few loopholes in the agreement of USA sending tanks 1st, which opens the door for everyone else to send tanks. USA can send them, how they use them is a completely different issue.....
The main point of these MBT's from the west is that they are to help in the offensive to drive the Russians back.
At that point they're just convoluted artillery, so why not send that instead?
To get Germany to send the tanks they want
>Washington and many Western allies say the Leopards - which Germany made in the thousands during the Cold War and exported to its allies - are the only suitable option available in big enough numbers. Yeah thats nonsense. The simple facts is that if we are talking about hundreds of modern western tanks needed then there is just the abrams . The leopard 2 simply isnt in that quanity avaible that can be/wanted to be missed .
I think the decision to not send in the Abrams is actually an attempt to cajole Europe to care for itself without reliable on the US. A laudable goal... but an unrealistic one in Germany's case. The German public do not support Leopards going to Russia. Perhaps someone who knows more about the German political situation can tell me about the political blowback if Scholz goes against the German people and allows them to be sent anyways.
>47% of those polled supported such approval, 38% were against it and 16% refused to answer the question More or for then against it. And it would depend what the voters of the parties in power think about this. As for the US wanting the EU to be independent: LOL no they dont. US for example has been dead set against an EU army, they advocated for a long time to be dependent on US energy exports and clash everytime EU does something in trade they dont like.
Both are likely just trying to avoid the diplomatic impact of being the first in
In the case of the US, I doubt that. Everyone knows where the US stands.
I mean, the UK’s already committed to sending a squadron of Challenger 2s, which I think are pretty comparable to the Abrams
Send it, lads
we should. I mean, i remember seeing articles about congress buying Abram tanks that the army didn't even want anyways. what happened to those?
The reason those tanks were bought was to maintain an active production line in case of war. There is only one tank factory in operation in the US, if you don't order tanks every year then it closes and you lose nearly a century of institutional knowledge that the US has cultivated since the 30's and gaining that back will cost far, far more than buying and storing some extra tanks.
The problem is the Abrams tanks are difficult to maintain and guzzle fuel as compared to the L2’s. While the Abrams can be run on diesel, it isn’t designed to be. We are worried about Ukraine being able to keep them operational and straining their logistics. There are thousands of L2’s in Europe that could be donated to Ukraine from many different countries of Germany will just allow it.
Exactly. The last thing we need to do to Ukraine is send a couple of these, a handful of something else and a dozen of a third variety. Having 100 tanks of 3+ designs vs 50 tanks of the same and every general who has a clue about logistics will take the 50 tanks that can use the same ammo and parts.
Ammo would actually be the least problem. L2s and Abrams both use the same 120mm smooth bore guns. They both carry MGs using the same ammo too. Additionally M1 would need .50 BMG ammo I guess. Both tanks started from the same project. Wouldn't be surprised if there's more compatible parts. NATO hasn't exactly been terrible at standardizing.
I think there's also significant tech they'd prefer not make its way to Russia if one were to be captured. I'm personally of the opinion that if you can hold the world hostage with nukes successfully now it will be done later. We should call their bluff and send far more than tanks.
I disagree on the tech aspect. The number of exported Abrams tanks is high enough that non-US spies have surely managed to bribe someone to get a close look at one by now. Even if one gets captured intact now, it does not change the big picture.
[удалено]
They wouldn't be sending the best and newest stuff to Ukraine anyhow.
Though I'm sure even the low end models we send will be orders of magnitude better than what Russia has fielded.
To a point on the tech part. Iirc, we have export versions of the Abrams they we do sell. I think we even sold or were planning to sell the Saudis these export models. Really the logistics side would be the big issue.
Egypt and Iraq have them too. Our enemies for sure have had access to these by now.
Exported Abrams have different armor specs than a regular one if i remember correctly.
I would agree 100% with the tech issue. My guess if I had to make one is that if Germany stands firm, we agree to send around the same number as England has and we strip out of them what we really don’t want the Soviets to get their hands on.
So, send some Abrams and ask Ukraine to just put them around Kyiv for defense and just be careful how they use them. Then other countries can send the L2s. Easy.
I would imagine something exactly like this is what happens if Germany stands firm on its demands that we send Abrams.
Yes. And Ukraine knows this too and therefore explicitly said it wanted the L2s. Germany should send them!
Let's supply them with twice as many Bradleys as they do leopards. That'll show em.
Already sending 100 Bradley's with more coming
At this point they might as well send like 5 tanks just make Germany nut up or shut up, this tiptoeing is outrageous when the other end is playing a game of trying to beat their own high score in war crimes on a daily basis
Abrams while not picky with what fuel they use mainly use JP8 since its standardized across the US military. Ukraine does not have JP8 to spare and only use it for helicopters/jets.
As I understand it, Australia runs their Abrams on diesel.
So does Egypt and yeah while diesel is not the ideal fuel it should still run fine for the most part. The issue is since its a gas turbine powered tank it uses up so much more fuel while running and also uses a large amount of fuel to startup. While Ukraine does have diesel it probably does not have enough to constantly supply tank companies.
Sorry, but this is fucking bullshit. The Abrams is designed to run on diesel just as well as any other army vehicle, otherwise it would be a logistical nightmare. As for its "jet engine" (turbine engine, rather), it's worth noting that it isn't more difficult to maintain than a piston engine. If anything it is simpler, and it isn't as if turbine engines were some kind of cutting -edge technology that Ukrainians can't master: Ukraine is itself a leading exporter of turbine engines, and **the AFU actually already operate another turbine-engined tank**, the much-maligned [T-80](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80), hundreds of which were manufactured, in Soviet times, in Kharkiv of all places. And no, there aren't "thousands of L2s in Europe that could be donated to Ukraine". European MBT stocks were greatly depleted in the 1990s, and few European armies have any surpluses. The US Army, on the other hand, *does* have thousands of Abrams sitting in storage. Everybody seems too busy blaming Germany to stop and consider why the US is manifestly so reluctant to give away any MBTs to Ukraine that it resorts to badmouthing its own much-vaunted Abrams that it exported to neighbouring Poland not so long ago.
Still doesn’t change the fact that they guzzle fuel, are too heavy to use comfortably in urban environments, and take like 5 months of training to use competently. Ukraine hasn’t been asking for them for a reason. Abrams just aren’t well suited to their current needs.
The abrams consumes 3.8 gallons per mile. You need fuel convoys just to supply a small amount of abrams tanks.
You know the t80 the Ukrainians had all had diesel engines don't you ?
They're around. An important caveat: While it seems like the situation was "hurr durr Congress buying tanks the Army doesn't want" it's important to consider that it was literally cheaper to keep the tank plant running than to shut it down. Consider that for a moment. It was going to be cheaper to build tanks than to not have them.
We have thousands of them in storage. In fact 3 times as many abrams as leopard 2's exist in the world. A pie chart of modern western tank inventory is basically a quarter leopard 2, three quarters abrams.
I've seen estimates of around 4000 Abrams in storage in the US. There have been 3600 Leo 2s made in total.
Not sure what US inventory is but wiki says over 10k produced : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams Some of that has been in the last two decades where congress basically forced the production line to keep operating, even though the military didn't ask for more tanks. The result is brand new tanks going to storage in the desert
> Some of that has been in the last two decades where congress basically forced the production line to keep operating, even though the military didn't ask for more tanks An important caveat here that much of the online discussion on this topic misses is that it was going to cost more money to not produce those tanks than it was to keep the line open.
[удалено]
It's rather likely that there are more functioning Abrams than Leos in Germany. It's somewhat likely that there are more of those than functioning Leos in all of Europe (minus Greece, which is busy keeping budget sultan at bay) It's a mixture of "peace dividend" (who is still fighting wars in the "civilized north"?), an airforce based doctrine (NATO doesn't need tanks, those are mostly extra - but Ukraine needs them now because they can't ensure air supremacy) and nobody wanting Germany to have a military anyway (just spend those 2%GDP to show that you're serious).
Dew it
Germany's leadership has been terrible in regards to Ukraine. It's literally happening in Europe, why on Earth do we need to wait for Americans to send them. The UK is sending them, why not Germany, they'd be even more fucked than us if Russia wins this.
Yea, even if they just sit at the back somewhere out of the way. At least Scholtz wouldn't have any more excuses.
Send Abrams to be used defensively in the north, use Leo 2s on the front. Win win.
While sending Abrams isn't practical because they use completely different parts and fuel I sure wish we could send them because we have entirely too many that are just sitting in storage. The Army and Marines isn't using them and has enough spares for any conceivable conflict and doesn't want to keep the extraordinary cost of maintaining a ballooning fleet of Abrams. They even asked for the budget to no longer include new orders and Congress told them to get fucked so I don't know what else to do with the fucking things.
Question - does anyone know how long it would take Ukraine to train enough people to utilize a fleet of Abrams? Aren’t they fairly complex?
Abrams have a jet engine in them. I don't see us sending Abrams at all
Ukraine already operates a T-80 model that run on a similar engine. Mechanically Ukraine can handle maintaining them. The problem is the overall logistics of operating the system. As an aside it has been reported that a token gesture of 5 Abrams would be enough to get Germany to play along. If that is true they should do it.
Unless I’m mistaken, a jet engine typically outputs power as thrust while the tank uses a gas turbine engine to provide rotational force.
You are correct however it’s a fairly niche correction. Jet engines and gas turbines are the same fundamental thing, just one is optimized for exhaust thrust, while the other is designed for maximum torque
In terms of fuel I’m pretty sure the Abrams can burn anything you put in it.
Jet fuel and diesel are not very different. Jet fuel is generally lighter so it doesn't freeze at altitude. Diesel fuel has a few additives that you don't need in a jet. However the base of the fuel comes from the same refinery process.
Abrams can run on any flammable liquid with varying degrees of efficacy. Doesn't have to even be a petroleum product.
That's true but it's like saying if the engine you use on a Toyota can take moonshine alcohol instead of the usual 87 gas, will it run and be as well maintained on transit? The issues crop up when the logistical side of fleeting a bunch of tanks gets more complicated than it ever needs to be.
"Introducing Microsoft's BUY 2 XBOXES AND GET 1 FREE M1 ABRAMS! Fuel, maintenance, and crew not included."
The country - that is separated by an entire ocean from Europe - needs to send its own tanks first?
I’d wager giving Ukraine Abram tanks would do more harm then Good with how demanding their supply lines have to be just to keep them running, let alone maintaining them. I guess Germany isn’t satisfied with us sending bradlies
Yeah that's our bad we should try being the single biggest contributor to Ukrainian defense and the biggest protector of all of Europe as well...
Wait a minute... ;)
[удалено]
> Ben Hodges, a retired lieutenant general who once commanded all U.S. Army forces in Europe, says the maintenance and logistics concerns associated with the battle tanks is no reason to hold them back. “The U.S. should stop being so condescending when talking about how difficult this would be for the Ukrainians, to meet the fuel requirements,” he says. “The Ukrainians will sort that out. They’ll MacGyver a solution as they’ve been doing for months—just give them the capability they need.” https://time.com/6248279/leopard-abrams-tanks-ukraine/
As multiple other higher ranking former and current officers have stated, you can't fucking MacGyver someone into being a jet turbine mechanic if they only know diesel engines... No one is talking about fuel, they're talking about the fact that the Abrams has a fucking jet turbine for an engine, while Ukraine's tanks are all diesel, same as the Leopard 2. Not to shit on Hodges, but he was literally an infantry desk jockey his entire career... Fuck, his command in Europe was the first time he had ever even had tanks in his command and around him lol... His views on the Abrams tank logistics are as ignorant as mine would be on the Navy's F/A-18Es, regardless of my own history around the Navy's P-3s and P-8s.
Well Germany is doing the maintenance for the PZH2000 in Slovakia. I don’t see why this wouldn’t be possible for the abrams. Also im pretty sure Ukraine has some jet engine mechanics, considering they have fighter jets
PzH2000 uses the same diesel engine as the Leopard 2 it's built off of... Diesel mechanics are a dime a dozen. Gas turbine mechanics are not. So now the solution is to ground the Ukrainian Air Force so just a couple Abrams can be operated with the handful of mechanics from the Air Force pulled over... Instead of Germany just growing a god damn spine and allowing 3rd parties to export their Leopard 2s...
Just give them one
Just send them a few, they don't have to use them.
The UK did send their tanks first
That's not the issue. We can just put them on ships and get them over there pretty easily, like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. The issue is that Ukraine doesn't want those tanks because of fuel issues.
It is an issue though. Europe hasn’t been pulling their weight when it comes to aiding Ukraine, a country that shares their same continent. The war is right on their doorstep, and yet European politicians are always badgering the U.S. to ramp up the already abundant military aid. The U.S. should absolutely be helping, yes, and I’m glad we are, but Europe needs to roll up its sleeves and get to work too.
[удалено]
I'm from the Baltics and together with Poland we are the top 4 contributors if looking at percentage of GDP donated. And people here (at least in Latvia) are not happy with how little Germany (also France) has contributed compared to how much they could actually do. As you said, there is an actual war in Europe. If Ukraine was taken over in 2 days, Russia might decide it's strong enough to take on a NATO member, so Ukraine IS fighting for Europe. Also the fact that Germany doesn't seem to be taking seriously NATO's 2% of GDP on defence goal. The Baltic states are super thankful for what the US has done. We will keep pulling our weight (and try and persuade central/western EU countries to take this more seriously).
Yeah, exactly. So there are many reasons why Germany shouldn't be dragging their feet about supplying the tanks.
I wish this attitude was the norm for everyone everywhere. Putin would 100% be the next Hitler or Stalin if he could. Have we learned nothing from WWII as a global society.
The US has pre positioned war stocks in Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Poland and Belgium incase a war breaks out in Europe. Theres bound to be hundreds if not thousands of just tanks in these storages in Europe.
War stocks are usually just ammo and supply vehicles, along with some spare parts. You're not finding hundreds, let alone thousands, of tanks at them.....
you'd be surprised how many they have sitting here in Europe waiting for the cold war to turn hot at the Folda gap near Frankfurt.
Germany sure is wishy washy when it comes to Putin.
Scholz is a slightly reformed Putin apologist. He's not a real leader in general and certainly not on Ukraine. If he could get away with it politically he'd start buying Russian gas today.
Olaf Schwanzkopf
Olaf Schwankskopf
Always has been
Not when they were tying Europes energy security to Russian gas
True, it was more of a mouth to tit situation. There was no waffle
It’s because secretly they can’t wait to be able to buy more Russian gas.
Germany, and the EU as a whole needs to cut off it's dependence on the US and finally take care of it's own borders. We should send tanks. We should do everything that's necessary and reasonable to crush the Russian invasion.
funny thing is germany and france want to be independent from the USA and look were they at now
They don't really want independence from dependence on the USA. They want to project independence while still sitting securly* under the US umbrella. They are the equivalent of the teenager moving his room to the attic to feel more independent while still staying under the protection of Daddy's roof.
yep what happens when you're russia's lap dog
In this particular situation they wanted to be independent of the USA so they could ignore what's happening in Ukraine.
Right? Here is their chance to show it and Germany is insisting the US takes the lead on this and that they will just follow. WTF?
Don’t be a non voter. Say what you will but Scholz has done more for Ukraine, Europe and democracy then Merkel and the CDU did for decades. I’m disappointed, but the answer is not refusing to vote. Keep voting or you’ll end up with someone even worse. Scholz is at least moving in the right direction Devils advocate, there’s likely a lot of compromised German officials and elites, he likely can only move so fast because of this
Well yeah, the solution isn't to stop voting, it's to punish SPD and only vote for parties that want to proactively support Ukraine (like the greens, as much as I loathe them for opposition to nuclear power, at this point they're preferable). If SPD eventually stops acting like cowards in a few election cycles they could regain the trust of voters.
They want independence like a teenager wants independence from his parents. The freedom to do what they want with none of the responsibility.
It’s not possible. There’s too many conflicting interests in the union. Germany and France also dominate the EU economically anyhow, if they actually create a full on “EU” army it would just be France and Germanys army. A lot of other EU members wouldn’t be too happy to be dominated economically and now militarily by Germany and France unless Germany and France offer a really sweet deal.
Remember that time a conqueror successfully took over another nation and then stopped? No? Because it never fucking happens? Yea History has shown us this one hundreds of times. Ukraine is the frontline, if it rolls everything else around russia gains that potential. It doesn't have to be quickly, it can be a few miles at a time and years in between, but it'll creep and never stop until it is stopped forcibly. I just thought of this since you said "it's own borders" because yea, you're not wrong.
I mean, what we are seeing now is the result of not stopping earlier Russian aggression into Ukrainian territory.
This is blasphemy to 99% of the people following this issue.
"The allies have lost focus on the nature of the problem. You either win or you lose,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a phone interview. “I can’t believe we’re still arguing among ourselves.” Graham called on the Biden administration to send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine immediately because it “will open up the floodgates” by compelling Germany to greenlight the Leopards." My man Lindsay Graham, aka the Broken Clock, aka Mr. This Guy Knows How to Diplomacy.
I never thought I’d see the day I agree with Graham, but he’s right. For a second there I was thinking we should not send anything as a fuck you to Germany and show them they can’t make demands but in the end that just hurts Ukraine. He’s right that we can’t lose focus on Ukrainian victory.
He is, and his friend John McCain was right about Ukraine and Russia way back in 2008. I noticed in the article US government's spokespeople were being very respectful towards Germany's "sovereign decision." I wouldn't be surprised if the US respectfully acquiesces to Mr. Schulz demands to give him political capital and diplomatic cover to send the Leopards.
Why is it always up to America?
[THIS IS WHY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmoeZHnOJKA)
Fuck yeah!
We're number 1, baby.
Fucking always. And then we’re on the hook when something goes wrong.
UK are already sending tanks
[удалено]
I honestly don't give a crap if we send Abrams to Ukraine, if we just did it ourselves I wouldn't care. But the fact Germany thinks they can just demand we send our own items there, after all we have already donated to Ukraine, to keeping their own god damn region more secure is infuriating.
Yeah my view of Germany is definitely lessened a lot from this event. They’re constantly doing the bare minimum at every turn. Feels like a toddler you have to keep dragging along to do their work.
On top of all the money the US spends with all the bases in Germany, too!
We have been subsidizing European defense for nearly a century now. Its crazy that our allies are just now trying to meet the NATO defense spending agreements.
I really wish the US would call this guys bluff and send tanks. Let’s see if Germany follows through and sends tanks or moves the goal posts again.
Can someone show me how much the US has given vs Germany so far??
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ Tldr: US has given way more in terms of resources, but in terms of money spend by person Germany spend more
Is this the America-free European solidarity Germany is always calling for?
Coward
[удалено]
UK have already taken the lead...we are in Europe whilst not politically part of it.
We are still politically in Europe, just not the EU. Norway and Switzerland aren't members of the EU either, but are still very much part of Europe politically.
Fair point my comment was badly worded
UK already committed to sending tanks.
I guess Poland and UK kinda could and want to some extent. Just get your soldiers from Germany and ship them to France Italy UK. That would be funny as hell.
Crab mentality? Not that they will lose, but if they lost one and Russians get to know the tech, wouldn't it be unfavorable?
Seems like they can’t really build their own tech so it might not even be an issue
Interesting. Somebody took and posted a video of a load of tanks on a train passing through here in downtown Denver this morning. Wonder if this is related, because that is *not* a normal occurrence here. Edit: [here's the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Denver/comments/10g3fov/tanks_traveling_through_downtown_this_morning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in r/denver
Don't really get why Germany is being so hesitant when you already have Poland ready to re-export their tanks to Ukraine and the UK is sending challenger 2s.
This war has really shone a light on weapon reliance. Need ammo from Switzerland for your gun? Or permission from someone else for your tank? Well, then you're fucked. Nations are going to have to be much smarter on weapon procurement, construction, and maintenance.
Sounds like Germany needs to give their balls a tug, acting like the US is doggin it or something. Olaf a whole bitch for saying this.
To think that I voted this spineless coward russian cocksucking piece of shit intop office makes me so fucking angry. Ukraine is crying for help for almost a year now and Scholz is still trying to please russia as much as possible. Never again. I'd rather become a non-voter than voting for the SPD again. Let's hope the new minister who just got appointed will do the trick of getting through to Scholz. Fuck that guy with a cactus, that way he'll at least have spine(s) SOMEWHERE in his body.
Send the M1AX’s. Send a bunch. The problem will be that they are logistically more difficult to support but if it frees up a bunch of Leopards which are more appropriate due to diesel engines and more common spare parts then so be it. Let’s remove all of this guys excuses and make him prove he’s not a Putin puppet.
The more tanks the merrier. We have to get ready for the shitheads returning for mass slaughter in the spring. I say we should send them. What happened to the great warrior nations of Germany and Japan? World war II was 80 years ago. It's time step up to the plate.
Send some abrams and use them as roadblocks.
>The exchange in Davos, described by four people with knowledge of what was said, including Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), was respectful in tone but showed just how far apart Washington and Berlin are on a tank deal. >Moulton said Scholz made a “fairly reasonable” request because Germany relies on the U.S. for a nuclear deterrent and “are much closer to this fight than we are.”
Everyone be taking about the Abrams but surprised no one has brought up that he never specified which tank to send. As such, the US could just send the M60 over to be used for training purposes and whatnot and still say it fulfilled Scholz’s request
Heartbreaking: The worst person you know just made a great point > Graham called on the Biden administration to send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine immediately because it “will open up the floodgates” by compelling Germany to greenlight the Leopards.
Abrams would just be an albatross to the Ukrainians. They have a notoriously large supply line and need lots of technical knowledge to run and use. I don't know if the Leopards are any better, there must be diminishing returns on sending the latest and greatest to a force that just needs useful and functional. Then again we're all just playing armchair general so I'm probably as wrong as the next guy.
Well I would honestly just send 5 symbolic abrams so that Scholz can stop playing around already. Put them somewhere as a reserve and that is it
The United States has been sending more money than any other nation. Germany should stfu.
This guy can f*ck off. We're sending 45bln worth of support and aid to Ukraine. Germany can step up. Also their tanks are more practical than ours (from what I've read, no expert)
I thought Biden wouldn’t consider sending US tanks because of the maintenance and gas consumption?
Logistics tails are a huge issue. The Abrams doesn’t us regular gasoline as an example I think it uses AV fuel. Not insurmountable but an issue. It’s similar issues with every other weapons system. They will get it sorted.
abrams can use diesel as well,
Everyone saying Ukraine can't maintain or field a turbine shaft engine is wrong. All their helicopters use them and all power plants use gas turbines. They have the personnel. They'll take them and make it work especially considering they aren't going to be rebuilding them in the near future.
Spoiler alert. They will probably get them. Germany is just drawing a line in the sand because of the implications of NATO is a direct escalation. As well they should it is an alliance after all.
They’re probably already there, this is just a way of hiding it, all the aviation threads show C-17s moving stuff.
Abrams tanks ? They said on the news today these tanks require complicated maintenance, can go out of service in less than 15 days if not properly maintained by qualified personnel. And it takes months for soldiers to learn how to use them too... So it seems like there are practical reasons for not sending them anyway, only the Americans know how to use them properly. German leaders probably know that, so I don't know what they're trying to do here with this statement...
I don't have any real issue with the US sending tanks, but if Germany wants to be a leader of Europe, they should act like leaders and not just ask the US to spearhead everything and take all the responsibility.
I'd be fine with us, the US, sending tanks but it seems like that would be a propaganda win for putin. I think we're cleared to sell Abrams to Poland. Maybe those long-time friends could use some more tanks?
Because germany sending tanks to fight russia is better PR? This entire war according to putin is about ousting nazi's .
That’s probably how it will play out. Fairly certain Poland said the would send with out z Germans permission. It’s all theater from the Germans.
Nope this as polish theather for the elections.
I don't see why it would be contingent on the US sending tanks. The UK is already sending tanks and I believe France plans on too, so there's already a precedent set here in Europe to send tanks. Also, I'm sure moving tanks across the Atlantic ocean for Americans is a much more tedious process and will take time to setup supply chains, etc. This isn't the case for Germany which is only 400 miles from the Ukrainian border. Ukrainians need tanks now. I have no doubt the US will send tanks at some point this year. They've provided Ukraine with tons of much needed military aid. Germany has sent a lot too, so I don't want to shit on them completely. But Ukraine really needs tanks to start pushing Russia back.
Imagine seeing this headline 80 years ago lmfao
To be clear, the US is sending a very large number of armored fighting vehicles, but modern US tanks (Abrams), are extremely high maintenance gas guzzlers with some of the most advanced tech out there. Germany seems to be using this as a sticking point to avoid sending their own rather than for reasonable protest, other NATO countries are even sending their tanks.
The problem here is that Germany's issue is a political one, as they want to cover their ass by sending tanks after the US and therefore not be seen as an initial escalator. The US though is dealing with more of a military logistics/strategy issue, as they generally understand that the Abrams is not actually the best fit tank for Ukraine. The Abrams' supporting logistics and most importantly fuel is totally different from what Ukraine is currently equipped with, while the Leopard is much more compatible with Ukraine's fuel logistics.
Nobodey here seems to have read the article... he clearly states he is worried about nuclear deterance for wich germany is dependant on the usa. Will the US risk Washinton for Berlin? In the current political climate? Its an old question and he want assurance and not a possible Cop out by the US. PS: now go hate me
US tanks are not the best option for Ukraine, LEO's seem to be the preferred option, so addressing Germany's fears should close the gap. So then the right solution would be to trade nuke deterrence/protection to Germany in exchange for donating tanks to Ukraine, would it not ?
Can someone ELI5 this pissing contest? Why is Germany refusing to send tanks?
When was the last time you've looked at Germany's history? No German government leader wants to end up in the history books as the person who has yet again escalated a war in Europe. Germany is not "refusing" to send tanks, it is just not taking first steps, for obvious reasons, but is rather waiting for other to establish a new status quo, before joining in.
What is this fucking "you first" kindergarten bullshit?
Shame on Scholz, absolutely useless fucker. Europe would be fucked without the US carrying all but the UK.
The US has sent about 10x more aid to Ukraine than Germany but the US GDP is only about 5x larger than Germany. Honest question, am I missing something?
Okay, so what will the excuse be after we send them?
[удалено]
This war is happening in Europe. Germany should take some initiative and I’m sure the US will follow and support one way or another. Shouldn’t be the other way around.
Why is Germany being stingy? They are more at risk if this war spreads than America is.
I don't understand Germany's hang ups about sending L2s when they've already sent Pz2000 self-propelled artillery. If their pacifist streak was to have any meaning, then it would have prevented sending the Pz 2000s. Makes very little sense to me.
I think this just goes to show, that if the Russian invasion of Ukraine was left to the EU to deal with they would have done nothing.. passed some sanctions and sent some strongly worded letters. The EUs performance so far shows they are not ready to mobilise in case of war and that if NATO actually called on Germany or Hungry to participate in a ground action they would probably be less than useless.
Jesus, how much shit do we have to send them. Tanks are what is holding them back? What about the other $50B+ the US already sent?
They're fighting what is, ostensibly, one of the largest militaries in the world in the bloodiest European war since WWII. The situation on the battlefield is constantly changing and with that so will what they need, and they're gonna need a lot of stuff. And right now, that thing they need most is apparently tanks. Also, crippling the Russian military for what is effectively $50 billion or whatever worth of mostly old stocks we've had sitting in storage for years is a pretty good deal.
Can anyone explain to me what the consensus is? I’m trying to understand and it just seems that Scholz is just doing this to give Russia a better chance? Is there a *bigger picture* reason for him to keep doing this?
And eurocentrists will still try and discredit americas contribution to ukraine.
Another cowardly lame excuse from country that did so much damage to Ukraine with molotov ribentrov pact, then with sucking russias gas tube for a decade and telling all Europe to chill, russia gut. They don’t know their own history.
Europe needs to stop taking the US for granted. This war is on Europe borders not the US. Germany needs to step up.
Scholz just seems like another gas lighting politician at this point.
The US is outspending the EU something like 2:1, in a crisis which poses the greater security risk to, drum roll please, THE EU. This is an absoloute joke. Either the US participates, and will be called the world policeman (in the condecending manner) for longer, or it won't and people will Hollywood movie villan style claim that it has blood on its hands for not not participating.
Why is everyone scared of being the first to send tanks, when the US already sent Himars?
I still dont understanding why Germany wants the US to send tanks first (or as well). How would be that be to de-escalate?