Germany's delay on tanks shows why U.S. leads on global stage
Germany's delay on tanks shows why U.S. leads on global stage
The world still needs the United States if other leading economies are going to delay needed military support.
Thanks for reading the Weekly Dystopia! Researching and writing a newsletter takes time and effort. Please buy me a coffee if you want to support me to ensure the viability of the newsletter.
Summary: Germany announced it would send tanks to Ukraine only after the United States declared it would make its own delivery, making the need for the U.S. standing in the global affairs evermore clear despite objections from isolationist conservatives.
Look no further than Germany's delay in sending its eagerly awaited Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine to recognize the continued need for premier standing in the world of the United States.
Germany finally relented in the holdup over the tanks, which are seen as crucial in a conflict that is essentially World War I-style trench warfare, only after President Biden approved the delivery of M1 Abrams tanks. It was only OK for one of the nation's leading economies to send once-promised military aid to a neighbor invaded by a hostile military power after the United States took the lead.
Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz, after weeks of domestic and international pressure, announced on Wednesday that Germany would send an initial shipment of 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. Additionally, Germany would back down on its initial refusal to grant its legally required approval to allow other countries in the Western coalition to send tanks to Ukraine.
Not long ago, as America retreated into a more isolationist mindset under President Trump and Angela Merkel presided over a European Union that sought to expand international engagement, there was real talk about Germany becoming the new leader in promoting Western civilization and values. The reticence of Germany to make good on its promise for tanks is a reminder that isn't the case, especially since that nation had to be goaded into maintaining its NATO commitment of 1.7 percent of GDP in defense spending.
Steve Clemons, who writes the Semafor Principals newsletter and has keen eye for global affairs, summed it up nicely yesterday:
"The tanks were not an easy call for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose voters are wary of crossing certain lines into militarism. But had he not said yes, it would have become the overwhelming focus of the Munich Security Conference taking place in three weeks."
The differing legacies of Germany and the United States in World War II is a good explanation for the delay. Germany has been sensitive about military spending after its ambitions under Adolf Hitler unleashed untold suffering and human rights abuses in catastrophic ways.
But that was 80 years ago and the global landscape has changed considerably. Japan had similar aspirations in World War II, but has reemerged on the world scene with a robust military and ready to confront threats from Russia and China. With a leading world economy, Germany would do well to keep up if its resources aren’t too tied up with environmental activist Greta Thunberg after her very clearly staged and photogenic arrest last week.
More tanks in Ukraine may be necessary. The promised delivery, despite the agreement on Wednesday, may be too little, too late, as Dalibor Rohac writes at the American Enterprise Institute:
While the United States has large stocks of Abrams tanks the Marine Corps previously used, those would need to be adapted for export — including by removing some sensitive electronics and other equipment we would like to keep only for ourselves, for good reason. Administration officials said they’ll procure new tanks instead — meaning delivery could take a year or more.
As for the Leopards, Berlin has initially pledged only one company, or 14 tanks, augmented by supplies from other European countries such as Poland, Finland or Norway, followed by additional supplies at year’s end and into 2024.
An additional option, Rohac concludes, could be the revival of the U.S. Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio, which he says once churned out as many as 800 Abrams per year during the Cold War. That would have the double benefit of demonstrating American strength in Ukraine in addition to revitalizing industry in the Rust Belt.
In any event, with Germany lagging in its support, the need for the United States to maintain its global leadeship, one of the core values of the Weekly Dystopia, is evermore apparent. So far that has happened. With no sign Russia will relent in Ukraine, the United States has made good on its global standing by providing $50 billion in support for military operations.
The United States leading the way on the global stage by making the world safe for democracy and human rights with the strongest military on earth has been the status quo for decades. America is a good place, and that’s what a good nation would do with its power.
I thought this would be stating the obvious. That’s why part of me wrestled with the very concept of me writing this article. But apparently we need a reminder about the U.S. role in the global order.
Just look at objections from the isolationist conservatives increasingly growing in political strength. Trump just as I was writing this article fanned those flames with a recent post: "FIRST COME THE TANKS, THEN COME THE NUKES. Get this crazy war ended, NOW. So easy to do!"
It’s true there has to be a vision for victory. If the war in Ukraine appears endless, these isolationists may be successful in convincing the American public to cut off its support. The war in Ukraine shouldn’t descend into another Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
That's why a recent tweet from Mike Pompeo was right on point: "The fastest way to defeat Russia and end the war is to give Ukraine the weapons it needs." This tweet came out a day before Trump's post against sending tanks. Weirdly, it feels like a response, especially because those two may be competing for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination
.And yet, while maintaining a lead role in aiding Ukraine in its defense against Russia, the United States has also been careful not to become directly involved lest that intervention could escalate conflict with a nuclear-armed power.
The people within the coalition of Western allies against the Russian invasion of Ukraine know that's the right course of action. A recent comprehensive survey by Ipsos adults across 28 countries found 70 percent of responders favored support for a country when attacked by another country, while 71 percent said their country should avoid getting personally involved in the effect.
But when looking at the same survey in terms of data specific to the American public, you can see the impact of isolationist conservatives. Support within the United States for providing Ukraine with weapons and/or air-defense systems stands at 54 percent, but that's down a full five points from nearly a year ago. It's understandable support for Ukraine would dip if the conflict seems like a “forever war,” but I think our patience needs to last longer than 10 months.
Ukraine will need that continued commitment as conflict continues. In one respect, Ukraine has paid the consequences for the gift of tanks from Western allies. Russia sent civilians in Kiev flying after the deal was announced with an attack of missile and drones that killed at least 11 people, according to an on the ground news dispatch from Reuters.
That’s consistent with a recent Russian missile strike against a civilian target, an apartment complex where 1,700 people lived, shows the potential consequences of Russia having that advantage. The attack led to the 30 deaths and had no military utility for Russia other than to terrorize Ukraine’s population.
Talk now has shifted to supplying Ukraine with jets for F-16s in an effort for air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities. Whatever the decision on the jets, the continued support by the United States is consistent with its values and necessary to ensure stability in the global order. Other countries just aren’t up to the task.