Germany’s baffling reluctance to authorise the transfer of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine has highlighted Chancellor Scholz’s confusion over what is at stake in this war, but also Ukraine’s dependence on this sort of decision-making.
It’s not a proxy war. Ukraine is a victim. Victims who defend themselves are acting primarily in their own interests, since it is their lives, prosperity, future, dignity that are at stake. A proxy is one who acts primarily in the interests of a patron, which a victim under attack is not doing. Helping a victim makes her a beneficiary, not a proxy
I’m sorry but this is an atrocious take, it is by every definition a proxy war. You can call Ukraine a victim all you want, but Ukraine has been committing war crimes since 2014 killing ethnic Russians, Ukkrine does have an active NAZI party which controlles a large military unit called the AZOV. Like it or not, Russia is going to win, all this. Military aid is going to cause Ukraine to fight until there is nothing left. It time for peace talks.
You say ‘by every definition’ but unlike me don’t give a definition. I think that there has been some killing of people on Ukrainian soil for some years but it has not all been on one side. That doesn’t begin to suggest that those involved on both sides were not acting in their own interests but in those of a patron: or, if anything, it suggests that the Ukrainian separatists were acting in the interests of a Russian patron and were therefore proxies. Nazis may be involved but that doesn’t mean that the Ukrainians are not defending their own interests. For that matter there are Nazis in Russia too. Perhaps Russia is going to win and Ukraine lose but you don’t make your opponents proxies by crushing them, you emphasise that they are victims
"after this invasion I am now a strong proponent of expanding and strengthening NATO" - that's great to hear, just one quick note on your last sentence though: North Macedonia isn't anywhere near Russia and has never been part of either the Russian Empire, the USSR or Russia's historic sphere of influence, it wasn't even part of the Warsaw Pact. So it's probably not a good example to use.
It is just worth being in mind that sovereign countries have the right to determine their own political and economic alliances. Those eastern European countries that joined NATO and the EU knew very well what they stood to gain thereby and also the threat presented to them by Russia.
Point 1. If Russia is hurting badly in this war and wants the ‘Western Inspired’ damage to cease it has the sure cure. It could stop this war of aggression, bring the troops back alive and unharmed (physically) and return to its borders. Bingo. No more war, no more damage from the West and glory be they’ll find that the Ukrainians and NATO have no intention of invading and endangering Moscow. If Russia doesn’t like being in a damaging ‘proxy war’ with the West they could stop it tomorrow with the only cost being embarrassment.
Point 2. I suggest that anyone who thinks the West (or anyone) could successfully lean on the Ukrainians to cede territory grossly over-estimate foreign influence and are dismally ignorant of Ukrainian politics. Any Ukrainian politician who suggested it would be run out of town!
Point 3 Only the naïve or Kremlin groupies can seriously think negotiations for a lasting peace are a chance with Putin. He is not a man to keep promises and all he cares about is Russian geo-strategic influence and staying in power.
Point 4 I see only two possibilities with Putin in power: a frozen conflict/bloody stalemate or the ejection of Russian forces from Ukraine. I think we can put aside the prospect of Russia conquering Ukraine or even substantial parts of it. They’ve blown their chance of it and their army is way too beaten up to achieve this in the foreseeable future.
It is a war between democracy and autocracy. Those lined up behind Russia are predominantly quasi fascist states (e.g., Iran, North Korea) and those behind Ukraine are universally democratic. If it is a proxy war, Russia is fighting for the rule of dictators and Ukraine is fighting for freedom. So, then, "proxy" loses its meaning.
While victory remains possible - however unlikely and costly - Putin will continue his war. This is because the costs are already so huge that only victory can possibly justify them. So the war can only end with Putin winning or his victory becoming manifestly and obviously impossible.
I construct this little narrative from my understanding of the Central Powers in WW1 with Russia as the Central Powers, .
Will NATO always try to provide support to prevent Putin's victory while at the same time never doing so enough to make his defeat obvious (fearful of "escalation")? This implies a long war and a wholly uncertain outcome.
You are stating the obvious Peter, that Putin isn't going to stop, but sad to say it rather needs to be said. (Though my arrival at this narrative stems from his actions and words over a very long time).
Baffling? Not at all. Tanks (“landships”), much like ships on the water, have distinctive aesthetics that can be sorted by nationality. Russian tanks are a fine example of this: the T-55 resembles the T-62 or T-72 or T-80 or T-90 closely enough that all five would be recognizable as the products of a single material culture by a future “tank archaeologist.” Although similar in function, the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams are distinctive enough in design that the same expert would understand they came from different organizing societies. German politicians do not want distinctively-German tanks leading the assault against Russian positions in the Donbas.
I think the real fear is that in the type of war that is occurring in large relatively open Areas any western tank is going to get destroyed quick, it will not be a good look to see Lepord tanks burning.
As I understand it, the German stance is that the US must also commit to providing MBT before it allows Leopards to be supplied. What I don't understand is why the U.S. doesn't just pull some surplus Abrams out of storage (there are apparently hundreds if not thousands) and send them along with the full expectation that they will be merely symbolic. Don't worry about upgrades, the fuel economy or supply logistics, just let them sit in Kyiv or be photographed driving around a bit. If it unlocks this deadlock over Leopards it would be worth it.
I mean, I think this would just cause a social media storm. Do you really think that Zeleznsky will accept that, they seem pretty set on receiving more then a handful of symbolic tanks. I just don’t think America is ready to see the Abrahams get destroyed in large numbers and exposed by Russia.
It's probably worth a try, but I think there's a lot of suspicion that Scholz might just move the goalposts. He really doesn't want to send the tanks period.
Though TBH I think the US shares the escalation fears to some extent. I think in this case they're pretty nonsensical - unlike a lot of people on here I think there *is* a point where Putin would be willing to use nuclear weapons, but it'd only be when he feels his life/continuing rule would be in danger regardless. It's basically impossible to see how that could result just from Ukraine getting modern MBTs.
Nick.let there be no doubt that Russia will use battlefield tactical nuclear weapons as needs be.as a defeated Russia is a much worse scenario,& Western governments are aware of this.
1. Professor Freedman has already argued that Russia's best use of its nuclear capability, including its tactical capability, is as a limited deterrent against NATO arms supplies to Ukraine. If Russia used tactical weapons, that deterrent would be lost.
2. It appears that Russia has used a number of nuclear capable KH-55 cruise missiles, without warheads, conventional or nuclear, as part of its attacks on Ukrainian power infrastructure and civilians, as either kinetic weapons or diversionary missiles to increase pressure on Ukrainian air defences. It would be unusual to use this sort of missile in this way if there was any serious intent of the future use of tactical weapons.
3. From what can be established from reports, the Russian use of cruise missiles, including KH-55s, has been largely away from the battlefield, as noted at 2 above, where Russia appears to prefer more conventional artillery attacks to bombard the Ukrainian lines notwithstanding apparently depleted stocks of shells.
4. There have been reports that China, the most powerful country to avoid openly criticising Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has warned Russia against the use of nuclear weapons.
5. References to the use of nuclear weapons have come from characters such as Dmitry Medvedev and Dimitri Peskov and are best understood as part of an information campaign to undermine Western support for Ukraine - in other words, the deterrent effect referred to above.
Again, I greatly appreciate your explaining and analyzing war strategies, etc. in terms that neophytes such as I can understand. I follow news about the war to understand who did what where; I follow you to understand what it all means.
Great piece! Well written taking up different angles and lays out the forces at play and the complexity going forward.
You forget to mention the 50 CV90s IFVs from Sweden announced this week. Should enhance capabilities quite a bit since its considered one of if not the absolute best IFVs out there.
Outstanding article by Freedman. He simply cuts apart the proxy arguments of the appeasers and the anti-NATO critics. The simplistic, superficial reductionism of their positions is made obvious! Thank you Mr. Freedman!!! The cant that flies about over this issue is often overwhelming.
I see many writers, particularly Americans and those who aren’t paying attention to modern history, call baffling the German reluctance to provide Ukraine with main battle tanks. I think they are forgetting something.
WWII, the Great Patriotic War in Russian parlance, is still well remembered in Russia. The victory of Allied forces, of which the Soviet Union was part, is celebrated every year. During that war, countries bordering the Soviet Union, like Ukraine and Finland, actually sided with the nazis against what they considered the greater foe, i.e. the USSR. Russia has not forgotten that. Where do you think the talk of denazification comes from?
Neither have the Germans. The very idea of having German tanks battling Russian forces probably nauseates German politicians. It would perpetuate the old conflict and validate Russian claims of this being a fight against nazis (never mind that the political situation has changed since WWII).
I really hope the Leopards will be sent into Ukraine from Poland and other NATO states, letting Germany off the hook for right now.
Dear Asa, please check some historical facts - Finland did not side with the Nazies against the USSR - Finland was invaded by the USSR already in 1939 and fought two bloody wars on its front - yes with weapons support from Germany and some swedish volunteers but that is ...... similar to the current war.
Otherwise, I agree - the fight against "nazi tanks" is an extremely sensitive issue; consequently the German reservation, but the germans cannot be "left off the hook for right now", because there might be no afterwords.
I fear Russian defeat but I fear Russian victory even more!
Well yes, Finland fought the Soviets very valiantly in the 1939 winter war...And eventually ended up with the German Mannerheim in charge of their country. The enemy if their enemy...
But my point was that the optics of German tanks fighting Russians is what the Germans really don’t want. Fortunately, today the decision came that both Abrams and Leopards will be provided to Ukraine. Let’s hope it will do what has to be done to send the Russians home.
1. The Ukrainian armed forces are the only armed forces that will directly drive Russia from Ukrainian territory, which is the result desired, for different reasons, by Ukraine and NATO.
2. This result will only be achieved by a decisive offensive victory or a series of decisive offensive victories on the ground.
3. An essential component of any decisive offensive victory is the possession of a sufficient number of main battle tanks preferably superior in quality to those possessed by the Russian forces, with the availability of the resupply of losses.
4. Ukraine lacks such a component and cannot produce it from its own industrial resources. Its present tank force is depleted and comprises inferior Russian models.
5. NATO is capable of providing such a component to Ukrainian forces.
6. The German Leopard 2 MBT is, by common consent, the best MBT available from within NATO. Firstly, it was apparently designed specifically to counter Russian tanks. Secondly, it is easier to operate that other available models such as the Abrams. Thirdly, it is, apparently, available in significant numbers within NATO forces; several thousand have been built and I understand Ukraine has asked for 300.
7. To achieve the common Ukrainian/NATO desired result, Leopard 2 MBTs should be supplied to Ukraine by Germany and other NATO countries which operate it, with German permission.
8. NATO must, therefore, ensure German commitment to this plan in the shortest period possible and, in any event well before a projected Spring start date for offensive action (including very possible Russian offensives).
9. This is by no means the only weapons system that Ukraine requires so Germany is not alone! As I have boringly argued before, NATO should seek to identify and supply redundant F15, 16 and 18 aircraft. The weakness in this view is that I don't know how easy it would be for Ukrainian pilots to learn to fly them effectively. Further, artillery systems should b enhanced to attack force concentrations in Russia; this is not January/February 2022, with any room for a will they, won't they invade argument. We know they will go to Ukraine unless stopped.
The proxy vs puppet concept appears to be flawed. Ukraine is fighting a war of independence from a former Imperial power. Russia after 30 years of granting its former colony independence reconsidered and embarked on the war to reconquer its ex-colony. Control of resources is proceeding hand in hand with subjugation, displacement and destruction of population. Western military aid is designed to prevent secondary conquest. Germany’s unwillingness to provide tanks is not related to the nature of war and is explained in part by uncertain popular support for delivery of offensive weapons. Eastern part of Germany after reunification maintains strongly anti American attitudes and more supportive of Russia. Ukraine’s future survival is on the line. This is the tragedy of the current phase of this war.
It’s not a proxy war. Ukraine is a victim. Victims who defend themselves are acting primarily in their own interests, since it is their lives, prosperity, future, dignity that are at stake. A proxy is one who acts primarily in the interests of a patron, which a victim under attack is not doing. Helping a victim makes her a beneficiary, not a proxy
I’m sorry but this is an atrocious take, it is by every definition a proxy war. You can call Ukraine a victim all you want, but Ukraine has been committing war crimes since 2014 killing ethnic Russians, Ukkrine does have an active NAZI party which controlles a large military unit called the AZOV. Like it or not, Russia is going to win, all this. Military aid is going to cause Ukraine to fight until there is nothing left. It time for peace talks.
You say ‘by every definition’ but unlike me don’t give a definition. I think that there has been some killing of people on Ukrainian soil for some years but it has not all been on one side. That doesn’t begin to suggest that those involved on both sides were not acting in their own interests but in those of a patron: or, if anything, it suggests that the Ukrainian separatists were acting in the interests of a Russian patron and were therefore proxies. Nazis may be involved but that doesn’t mean that the Ukrainians are not defending their own interests. For that matter there are Nazis in Russia too. Perhaps Russia is going to win and Ukraine lose but you don’t make your opponents proxies by crushing them, you emphasise that they are victims
Explain that to politically ignorant Western masses,especially American.
"after this invasion I am now a strong proponent of expanding and strengthening NATO" - that's great to hear, just one quick note on your last sentence though: North Macedonia isn't anywhere near Russia and has never been part of either the Russian Empire, the USSR or Russia's historic sphere of influence, it wasn't even part of the Warsaw Pact. So it's probably not a good example to use.
It is just worth being in mind that sovereign countries have the right to determine their own political and economic alliances. Those eastern European countries that joined NATO and the EU knew very well what they stood to gain thereby and also the threat presented to them by Russia.
Well, it looks somewhat less reckless now, at least from a European perspective.
Point 1. If Russia is hurting badly in this war and wants the ‘Western Inspired’ damage to cease it has the sure cure. It could stop this war of aggression, bring the troops back alive and unharmed (physically) and return to its borders. Bingo. No more war, no more damage from the West and glory be they’ll find that the Ukrainians and NATO have no intention of invading and endangering Moscow. If Russia doesn’t like being in a damaging ‘proxy war’ with the West they could stop it tomorrow with the only cost being embarrassment.
Point 2. I suggest that anyone who thinks the West (or anyone) could successfully lean on the Ukrainians to cede territory grossly over-estimate foreign influence and are dismally ignorant of Ukrainian politics. Any Ukrainian politician who suggested it would be run out of town!
Point 3 Only the naïve or Kremlin groupies can seriously think negotiations for a lasting peace are a chance with Putin. He is not a man to keep promises and all he cares about is Russian geo-strategic influence and staying in power.
Point 4 I see only two possibilities with Putin in power: a frozen conflict/bloody stalemate or the ejection of Russian forces from Ukraine. I think we can put aside the prospect of Russia conquering Ukraine or even substantial parts of it. They’ve blown their chance of it and their army is way too beaten up to achieve this in the foreseeable future.
Lmfao enjoy watching Ukraine get made a land locked state. Delusions as usual
It is a war between democracy and autocracy. Those lined up behind Russia are predominantly quasi fascist states (e.g., Iran, North Korea) and those behind Ukraine are universally democratic. If it is a proxy war, Russia is fighting for the rule of dictators and Ukraine is fighting for freedom. So, then, "proxy" loses its meaning.
Alan. You sound like another western dreamer. You are as free as the system you live under allows you to be.
Quite so, and that leaves the citizens of the democratic countries far freer than those of the autocratic countries.
While victory remains possible - however unlikely and costly - Putin will continue his war. This is because the costs are already so huge that only victory can possibly justify them. So the war can only end with Putin winning or his victory becoming manifestly and obviously impossible.
I construct this little narrative from my understanding of the Central Powers in WW1 with Russia as the Central Powers, .
Will NATO always try to provide support to prevent Putin's victory while at the same time never doing so enough to make his defeat obvious (fearful of "escalation")? This implies a long war and a wholly uncertain outcome.
You are stating the obvious Peter, that Putin isn't going to stop, but sad to say it rather needs to be said. (Though my arrival at this narrative stems from his actions and words over a very long time).
Peter. Only one outcome.
a Russian Victory.
I don’t see how Ukraine can win, Russia is killing so many Ukrainians currently is Bukmat.
Baffling? Not at all. Tanks (“landships”), much like ships on the water, have distinctive aesthetics that can be sorted by nationality. Russian tanks are a fine example of this: the T-55 resembles the T-62 or T-72 or T-80 or T-90 closely enough that all five would be recognizable as the products of a single material culture by a future “tank archaeologist.” Although similar in function, the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams are distinctive enough in design that the same expert would understand they came from different organizing societies. German politicians do not want distinctively-German tanks leading the assault against Russian positions in the Donbas.
I think the real fear is that in the type of war that is occurring in large relatively open Areas any western tank is going to get destroyed quick, it will not be a good look to see Lepord tanks burning.
Not an expert on RoK tanks but they are certainly distinctive.
As I understand it, the German stance is that the US must also commit to providing MBT before it allows Leopards to be supplied. What I don't understand is why the U.S. doesn't just pull some surplus Abrams out of storage (there are apparently hundreds if not thousands) and send them along with the full expectation that they will be merely symbolic. Don't worry about upgrades, the fuel economy or supply logistics, just let them sit in Kyiv or be photographed driving around a bit. If it unlocks this deadlock over Leopards it would be worth it.
I mean, I think this would just cause a social media storm. Do you really think that Zeleznsky will accept that, they seem pretty set on receiving more then a handful of symbolic tanks. I just don’t think America is ready to see the Abrahams get destroyed in large numbers and exposed by Russia.
It's probably worth a try, but I think there's a lot of suspicion that Scholz might just move the goalposts. He really doesn't want to send the tanks period.
Though TBH I think the US shares the escalation fears to some extent. I think in this case they're pretty nonsensical - unlike a lot of people on here I think there *is* a point where Putin would be willing to use nuclear weapons, but it'd only be when he feels his life/continuing rule would be in danger regardless. It's basically impossible to see how that could result just from Ukraine getting modern MBTs.
Nick.let there be no doubt that Russia will use battlefield tactical nuclear weapons as needs be.as a defeated Russia is a much worse scenario,& Western governments are aware of this.
In fact, there is significant doubt.
1. Professor Freedman has already argued that Russia's best use of its nuclear capability, including its tactical capability, is as a limited deterrent against NATO arms supplies to Ukraine. If Russia used tactical weapons, that deterrent would be lost.
2. It appears that Russia has used a number of nuclear capable KH-55 cruise missiles, without warheads, conventional or nuclear, as part of its attacks on Ukrainian power infrastructure and civilians, as either kinetic weapons or diversionary missiles to increase pressure on Ukrainian air defences. It would be unusual to use this sort of missile in this way if there was any serious intent of the future use of tactical weapons.
3. From what can be established from reports, the Russian use of cruise missiles, including KH-55s, has been largely away from the battlefield, as noted at 2 above, where Russia appears to prefer more conventional artillery attacks to bombard the Ukrainian lines notwithstanding apparently depleted stocks of shells.
4. There have been reports that China, the most powerful country to avoid openly criticising Russia's invasion of Ukraine, has warned Russia against the use of nuclear weapons.
5. References to the use of nuclear weapons have come from characters such as Dmitry Medvedev and Dimitri Peskov and are best understood as part of an information campaign to undermine Western support for Ukraine - in other words, the deterrent effect referred to above.
Again, I greatly appreciate your explaining and analyzing war strategies, etc. in terms that neophytes such as I can understand. I follow news about the war to understand who did what where; I follow you to understand what it all means.
Great piece! Well written taking up different angles and lays out the forces at play and the complexity going forward.
You forget to mention the 50 CV90s IFVs from Sweden announced this week. Should enhance capabilities quite a bit since its considered one of if not the absolute best IFVs out there.
Outstanding article by Freedman. He simply cuts apart the proxy arguments of the appeasers and the anti-NATO critics. The simplistic, superficial reductionism of their positions is made obvious! Thank you Mr. Freedman!!! The cant that flies about over this issue is often overwhelming.
That seems like a very childish way of provoking me. You know better.
A Mushroom cloud or 2 might soon be hovering over Ukraine.
I see many writers, particularly Americans and those who aren’t paying attention to modern history, call baffling the German reluctance to provide Ukraine with main battle tanks. I think they are forgetting something.
WWII, the Great Patriotic War in Russian parlance, is still well remembered in Russia. The victory of Allied forces, of which the Soviet Union was part, is celebrated every year. During that war, countries bordering the Soviet Union, like Ukraine and Finland, actually sided with the nazis against what they considered the greater foe, i.e. the USSR. Russia has not forgotten that. Where do you think the talk of denazification comes from?
Neither have the Germans. The very idea of having German tanks battling Russian forces probably nauseates German politicians. It would perpetuate the old conflict and validate Russian claims of this being a fight against nazis (never mind that the political situation has changed since WWII).
I really hope the Leopards will be sent into Ukraine from Poland and other NATO states, letting Germany off the hook for right now.
Dear Asa, please check some historical facts - Finland did not side with the Nazies against the USSR - Finland was invaded by the USSR already in 1939 and fought two bloody wars on its front - yes with weapons support from Germany and some swedish volunteers but that is ...... similar to the current war.
Otherwise, I agree - the fight against "nazi tanks" is an extremely sensitive issue; consequently the German reservation, but the germans cannot be "left off the hook for right now", because there might be no afterwords.
I fear Russian defeat but I fear Russian victory even more!
Well yes, Finland fought the Soviets very valiantly in the 1939 winter war...And eventually ended up with the German Mannerheim in charge of their country. The enemy if their enemy...
But my point was that the optics of German tanks fighting Russians is what the Germans really don’t want. Fortunately, today the decision came that both Abrams and Leopards will be provided to Ukraine. Let’s hope it will do what has to be done to send the Russians home.
ASA. The Russians are at home. It’s called Ukraine
This is relevant:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/22/vladimir-putin-ukraine-west-russia-president
1. The Ukrainian armed forces are the only armed forces that will directly drive Russia from Ukrainian territory, which is the result desired, for different reasons, by Ukraine and NATO.
2. This result will only be achieved by a decisive offensive victory or a series of decisive offensive victories on the ground.
3. An essential component of any decisive offensive victory is the possession of a sufficient number of main battle tanks preferably superior in quality to those possessed by the Russian forces, with the availability of the resupply of losses.
4. Ukraine lacks such a component and cannot produce it from its own industrial resources. Its present tank force is depleted and comprises inferior Russian models.
5. NATO is capable of providing such a component to Ukrainian forces.
6. The German Leopard 2 MBT is, by common consent, the best MBT available from within NATO. Firstly, it was apparently designed specifically to counter Russian tanks. Secondly, it is easier to operate that other available models such as the Abrams. Thirdly, it is, apparently, available in significant numbers within NATO forces; several thousand have been built and I understand Ukraine has asked for 300.
7. To achieve the common Ukrainian/NATO desired result, Leopard 2 MBTs should be supplied to Ukraine by Germany and other NATO countries which operate it, with German permission.
8. NATO must, therefore, ensure German commitment to this plan in the shortest period possible and, in any event well before a projected Spring start date for offensive action (including very possible Russian offensives).
9. This is by no means the only weapons system that Ukraine requires so Germany is not alone! As I have boringly argued before, NATO should seek to identify and supply redundant F15, 16 and 18 aircraft. The weakness in this view is that I don't know how easy it would be for Ukrainian pilots to learn to fly them effectively. Further, artillery systems should b enhanced to attack force concentrations in Russia; this is not January/February 2022, with any room for a will they, won't they invade argument. We know they will go to Ukraine unless stopped.
The proxy vs puppet concept appears to be flawed. Ukraine is fighting a war of independence from a former Imperial power. Russia after 30 years of granting its former colony independence reconsidered and embarked on the war to reconquer its ex-colony. Control of resources is proceeding hand in hand with subjugation, displacement and destruction of population. Western military aid is designed to prevent secondary conquest. Germany’s unwillingness to provide tanks is not related to the nature of war and is explained in part by uncertain popular support for delivery of offensive weapons. Eastern part of Germany after reunification maintains strongly anti American attitudes and more supportive of Russia. Ukraine’s future survival is on the line. This is the tragedy of the current phase of this war.
Is Russia also a proxy for Iran and North Korea? Is this a proxy war between The USA and NATO on one side and Iran + North Korea on the other?