NATO members are right to send tanks to Ukraine

That’s why “After you!” Latest round of! No, after you!” has been so disappointing and self-defeating. The fact that Ukraine is set to receive a main battle tank is welcome. But the way the decision came to prolong Ukraine’s suffering, He harms Western unity and benefits no one except that man. The Kremlin. None of these nato actors The latest comes out of the drama well, but Germany emerges from the worst.

Germany should be commended: it has given more military and financial aid to Ukraine than any other country, including aid channeled through the European Union. But under its chancellor, Olaf Scholz, it has nevertheless been reluctant to show hesitation and hesitation. Just before Russia’s escalating invasion of Ukraine, its first instinct was to limit military aid to helmets. Mr. Scholz’s caution has made it appear as though he was bounced by the US’s promise of an anti-missile system. In January they pledged infantry fighting vehicles, just after France set a precedent. Recently he has expressed concern about the tanks.

Ukraine has been demanding German-made Leopards since the seventh day of the invasion, but Germany is unwilling to send any of its own, nor to allow their re-exports to other countries. A long-pending agreement on sending the tanks was expected when the Western Allies gathered at Ramstein, a US base in Germany, on 20 January. But Mr Scholz only had to bow out on 25 January, following criticism from his allies, both within Germany and even from within his own coalition. His government now promises to send 14 Leopards to Ukraine and allow other countries to follow suit, a 45th birthday welcome for Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. “It is correct that we did not push ourselves, but rather … chose closer cooperation with our partners,” an unapproachable Mr. Scholz told the Bundestag.

Other countries are not without fault. Until recently, the US dragged its feet on sending Abrams tanks, and France’s Emmanuel Macron has only said he is “considering” sending Leclerc, after several months of refusing. Britain, wanting to set an example, stepped in a few weeks ago, but it can only field 12 or 14 Challengers and they will be of limited use, given that they have a good supply of spares and ammunition in Europe. There is a lack of supply chain. Re-export allowed till this week.

There is a feeling in Germany that Mr. Scholz has scored a diplomatic victory. Digging in his heels, he forced the Americans to offer him 31 of their Abrams tanks. Neutral Switzerland, under German pressure, would now allow the use of Swiss-made ammunition. Some argue that this is another success for Germany’s gradualist strategy, to increase its ability to supply arms to Ukraine without provoking Russia.

But Germany’s allies don’t find Mr. Scholz so smart. Leopards are better suited for Ukraine than Abrams, which are fuel hungry and harder to maintain. German built tanks are fast and powerful; Most important, more than 2,000 of them already sit in the arsenals of 13 European armies. They could be instrumental in stopping a new Russian push, and punching a hole through the land bridge that links Russia to occupied Crimea.

So Mr. Scholz’s diplomatic victory is pyramidal. It came at the cost of the first major public dispute between Ukraine’s allies. And the chancellor stopped short of the best possible outcome, which would have been for Ukraine to get more Leopards too soon.

Furthermore, if Mr. Scholz’s reluctance was a fear of escalation, his demarche makes no sense: his argument in recent days has been that he wanted the US to supply tanks at the same time as Germany. A deeper calculation is that the Chancellor is aware that when the war finally ends, Russia will remain a large and powerful presence in Europe. Perhaps he wants to be on reasonable terms with it. But such thinking should have been thoroughly discredited by Russia’s repeated invasions of its neighbors in 2008, 2014 and 2022.

Many would say that this explanation of Mr. Scholz’s hesitation is too cynical. A more charitable one would be a deeper protest to the spectacle of German tanks marching east once again towards Kharkiv and Kursk. This makes sense, but is in the wrong direction. In 1941 the German invaders entered Russia. This time the invaders are Russians. There is no equivalence between helping a victim to defend themselves and committing an act of aggression. Any German who confuses the two has learned the wrong lesson from his country’s horrific history.

Mr. Scholz’s claim to European leadership was bolstered just after the invasion, when he announced the Zeitenwende, a turning point in Germany’s strategic approach. Yet it is Mr. Biden who has emerged as the statesman who has yielded to upholding transatlantic unity when so much was at stake. On the contrary, Mr. Scholz jeopardized it, and ruined Germany’s diplomatic advantage by so brazenly approving the leopards.