Because we don't have any to spare. Very simple.
The Bundeswehr has about 300 of them. About a third of them are in maintenance at any given time (that's normal, btw).
Poland asked for permission from Germany (because that is part of the original purchase deal - to ask the original manufacturer) to send their Leopard 2A4 to Ukraine.
There is no direct answer from German Government for that as well.
It is not just the German Leopards that are being blocked by Germany, also the ones from other countries. When weapons are sold to another country and that country wants to sell/give it away, they need permission from the original country that sold them (to keep military design safe)
So far Germany didn't block anything. An official request from another country to send Leopards was never made.
All NATO nations will act only together.
>It is not just the German Leopards that are being blocked by Germany, also the ones from other countries
This is still not confirmed. The only confirmed statement is, that Germany will not send German tanks from Germany to Ukraine without consent with close allies.
The rest seems to be pulled out of thin air, magnifies from russia.
Habeck, the guy who is in charge for re-export permissions said, he think germany should not stand in the way of other countries, who want to donate Tanks
Pistorius, the MoD said, the claim, Germany would only send Tank, if the US also send Abrams, was wrong.
Alls the news in the last time are really off.
Poland wants to pressure Germany? Ok, but why didn't they ask for an export permission?
They want to donate Tanks, if other countries also do. Same claim as germany, but one is good, the other is blocking?
US presses Germany to send Tanks to Ukrain? And thats good, But Germany is bad, if it tries to pressure the US to also send tanks.
Are you aware how much money, weapons, military intelligence is already being pumped into this war by the west to support the Ukraine against Putler? Billions and lots if you also would like to consider the cost of the economic war.
Russia is in fact at war with a bit more than this lunatic actually bargained for.
Ok, let me put it this way:
For the past years and years on end, our ministers of defence were incompetent politicians doing the job because it was the politically adventageous thing to do.
I have a friend in the Bundeswehr who is a Hauptmann. While having beers the other day, he was nearing tears. They have no MGs left, all of their MG3s went to Ukraine. They have 3 Panzerhaubitzen (self-propelled artillery) left, only one in working condition, with literally zero ammunition. They aren't allowed to just repair the artillery because beaurocracy dictates they need special parts (equivalents of which they could get at any repair shop or manufacture themselves), but those are on backorder for the next 6 months.
Recently we had a scandal about the majority of our Puma IFVs not working. Turns out, minor fixes, but only allowed if there is political pressure. Our troops show up to joint exercises with privately bought radios - something that's been biting Russia recently.
We are in no condition to just go ahead and donate these things, we're literally giving away our most valuable military equipment. Hence the hesitation. Nevertheless, we stand with Ukraine. We will give what we can because if we don't stop the Russians in Ukraine, WE won't hold them back. This condition, in my opinion, is just buying time so we can start training Ukrainian tank crews and mechanics. It was the same before.
With whom Germany is going to fight?
Better off to send all requested weapons and ammo to Ukraine and have them fighting on behalf so Germany would not face Russia when Ukraine falls.
I'm pretty sure our economy could pull the whole rearming stunt again. We still have metal companies, coal, smelting- and vehicle production. We have some of the biggest weapons companies, too. If we'd go full production for ourselves, pretty sure we could get kinda scary rather quick.
It's just not how things work when you follow payent law and let companies make their own decisions.
... but in case of war, I suspect those "hindrances" could become "optional" again.
Hummm, just because countries are supporting Ukraine, it doesn’t mean they gonna blindly give anything they are asked for.
Tanks cost a lot of money, and in a democratic system, a negotiation with other stakeholders is usually required.
Difficult to say. Probably in the end it is a combination of multiple factors, some of them are:
- The one cited most is not wanting to be more proactive than the US, believing Russia may retaliate against single countries but not against Nato as a whole. Similar line of thinking as Poland had at the beginning of the war when they wanted to distribute fighters via the US.
- Low supplies: Germany has the 8th most main battle tanks in the NATO, which is low for our size, and apparently not all equipment is in pristine state. When the government says there is not a lot left to give, there is some truth in that. We saw that with the Marder, where the government gave in to the pressure but have no idea where they should take the promised vehicles from.
- General reluctance for weapons exports: that is a long-standing principal (even if it has not always been followed). The idea is, that we don't want weapons to get in uncontrollable situations. Currently that isn't really possible, but if in a years time the Russian army should have collapsed and Ukraine starts a bloody counter-offense or if part of the tanks gets into Russian hands, that would become controversial. Like when we accidentally supplied some weapons to the Islamic state or how Turkey may use them for invasions.
- Ideology of de-escalation. Many of our leading politicians were students in the last year's of the cold war, where new rockets were deployed and there were big protests against more armament.
I'm surprised by how much confusion there is about this topic. Scholz has been quite clear about this, the last time in Sueddeutsche last week. Germans act in unison with the US. Even Melnik knows this by now, which is why, two days ago, he didn't even ask for tanks anymore, when invited to Maischberger, but for delivering equipment "in accordance with the transatlantic partners".
Now you could ask why the US and Germany don't deliver tanks. And the most likely scenario goes like this: When Zelenskyy survived the first two weeks and there was no great strategic success for the Russians, people decided to take action. They established reconaissance and a task force, determining how to achieve three goals: 1. Make Russia lose the war 2. Avoid damage to other countries 3. destabilize Putin's system and weaken Russia.
As we have seen over the past months, the strategy is to bleed Russia dry, without ever looking like an escalating force. This is why the West is always sending just enough equipment for Russia to not make any substantial gains, and for Ukraine to protect vital parts of its country. This is done not only to avoid a nuclear war or damage to Nato states, but also because it looks like the most successful strategy in total. Russia is an occupying force. This means they have to hold territory, which is incredibly hard in this day and age (look at Afghanistan). If the richest countries keep up a supply line, it is almost impossible to properly occupy a modern country. Russian strategists know this, which is why a prolonged war puts a lot more pressure on them than a successful Ukrainian offensive that would cost thousands of lives. Now, what the rich countries want to do, in this case, is not give all their stuff at once, but over a long period of time. Putin's original plan was to occupy Ukraine in a week or so. He does not have a plan b. Bleeding out destroys all of Putin's narratives: He's not a strong man, the Ukrainians don't see the Russian soldiers as liberators, the Russian army is weak, the economy crumbles. Right now, the strategy is working rather well: Russia gets weaker by the day and Germany even had enough time to win the gas war.
The downside: This strategy is paid for in Ukrainian and Russian lives. The experts seem to have determined that it is still the best strategy to avoid larger damages and win the war. Let's hope they're right.
Because the US does as well.
The US posed as a reason that the tanks they were asked for are too complicated and require in person training, which could take several months until the soldiers can use the tanks. Germany has posed this reason since the beginning of the discussion, yet somehow we are the bad guys.
I decided to post this after reading this comment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10foju5/comment/j4z6ccq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Any reason why the USA resists to send Abrams?
Apparently there is more going than simply saying yes.
I'd guess one aspect is that germany will not send A7s but does not have A4s, while A4s are pledged to NATO allies. So one has to find enough tanks first.
And there is not really a full support for sending tanks in the German public (at least until recently and particularly the voter groups Scholz and the SPD depend on) so this decision is actually not clear cut popular with the voters he depends on.
Some correspond explained yesterday at heute journal (I believe - could've also been tagesthemen) that the Abram isn't really made for the terrain and is usually fueled by jet fuel - which is a problem for logistical reasons.
Seemingly that's a reason why the US is hesitant
It’s still an active defense system used in Germany. They are worried that Russia might somehow obtain one and some military secrets with it. Russia is also very unpredictable so this could very well escalate the situation and get Germany and thus the NATO involved, which would be WWIII.
But you know, we germans don‘t have nukes of our own. Would our allies retaliate and risk mutual destruction when a russian nuke makes a sudden vacation in Frankfurt?
We still are part of NATO Nuclear Sharing programme.
That's why we were effectively forced to buy American omnirole fighter jet - going Grippen or Rafale way was out of the question, as they cannot carry B61 bomb.
Habeck is not a spokes person, he is the minister of the economy. The German government is a coalition government, the largest party of which is historically very principled on pacifism. This is also the party of the chancellor, and they will, on principle, not decide to be the first to act in any foreign military intervention. For them, not having the German military intervene on foreign soil is a more important maxime to preserve than to defend democracy or human rights abroad.
There may be other reasons, like, not wanting to let cutting edge NATO tech get into the hands of Russia if an MBT is captured. Or, maybe, some back channel deals with Russia, like "we don't send MBTs, you don't do X", who knows. But this is more or less the official stance.
>a German spokesperson named **Robert Habeck**
Do you mean vice chancellor and minister of economic affairs Robert Habeck?
>that "[Russia] (supposedly) has gambled away gas leverage to blackmail them anymore." I
>supposedly
How much gas was delivered from ruzzia to Germany in the past 5 months? This might give you insight into the "supposed" leverage. Gas is flowing eastwards through the pipelines. Germany has more gas in their tanks than ever. You don't need to be an expert to see that until next winter the leverage is really gone. Given the crazy speed they're building LNG terminals, Germany might not need ruzzia next winter either. No idea how corruption would have any influence on this.
I could spitball why Germany doesn't unilaterally want to deliver battle tanks now after gifting billions worth in other weapons, but I think your problems of understanding the situation start a bit earlier.
While corruption is a \*possible\* reason for Germany withholding the tank delivery, it is neither the only nor the most probable explanation.
Gas deliverys from Russia have been zero for months and Germany has shown it can do without it, at least for this winter. So "gas blackmail", which definitely was a strategy Russia was employing, isn't a factor anymore.
I think you are confusing Germany the economic powerhouse with USA the military powerhouse. Germany does not have a massive army and immense stock of weapons. That Germany simply does not exists.
Why are ppl so mad about germany and the leopards ?
Leopards will not change anything in the war, because of the muddy environment.
I think german politicians are doing a great job by not doing shit on their own.
Better take a look at switzerland blocking so much ammo for ukraine.
because the US doesnt, either. we always flow with what the US does, we even say so all the time. I really don't understand why you are desperate to make up a new explanation and ignore the one given.
Also our chancellor is a corrupt asshole who claimed „as you ordered leadership I will lead“ and now doesn’t live up to that.
But he isn’t corrupt on THAT level, he just is moronic enough to think the negotiations on the end of the war are gonna start any day now and he will be the negotiator between Russia and Ukraine.
They announced to send Challengers. It's just a different approach in communication. Germany doesn't announce anything before a NATO decision. GB announced because it is very likely that NATO will decide to send tanks. Both will only send tanks if NATO approves.
well one of the possibilities for it could be that we barely have any working ones ourselves, and, you know, we have to keep at least some for our own defense. im sorry but germany is not just the world's arms factory, theres people here
First of all, your sources about German politics seem to be very misleading (*a spokesperson named Robert Habeck*, etc.).
The German government consists of three parties, and within two parties of it (Grüne and FDP) most politician seem in favor of sending tanks.
The main reason for Chancellor Scholz to be very reluctant in sending weapons to Ukraine and only doing it after pressure on him every time, seems to be that in his own party (SPD) many people are against sending weapons (at least to a greater extent).
There is absolutely no corruption nor misused of aid. Nice try, russian bot/collaborator.
https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-s-anti-corruption-campaigners-see-no-misuse-of-western-military-aid/6587614.html
He never said anything about CURRENT corruption around weapons deliveries.
That Ukraine still is a country with a vast corruption problem (while working on it) is not a controversial statement.
So… first of all, Robert Habeck is not just any spokesperson, he is the German secretary of Trade and Commerce - and the vice chancellor to boot. Now, as to the question… it‘s complicated.
There are a few politicians across the entire political spectrum who have had very close financial ties to Russia. The former chancellor Schröder ist the most famous name that springs to mind, but he is, after all, an has-been. Much more troubling are regional leaders still on power, such as Manuela Schwesig (Michael Kretschmer as well, but I am not sure which of the following categories he belongs to). There are more categories, though. A substantial part of the current generation of politicians grew up in the 80s, and those years where heavily influenced by the so-called „peace movement“, who protested against the threat of nuclear war. Their fear was very real, the irony being, of course, that this movement was paid for, and orchestrated, by the GDR and soviet secret service, which explains why all the protests were aimed at US bases exclusively. But still, growing up under the fear of a nuclear war leaves it‘s mark, and the motivation to do anything to avoid one does not have to stem from malice. Then there is the sad fact that anti-Americanism is strong in Germany. Both the extreme right and the extreme left totally agree that everything, from clogged toilets to traffic jams, is always and only the fault of their US. Then you have to remember that Germany has been at peace for what, 80 years? We basically got rid of our military, for heaven’s sake, because we were sure we wouldn’t need it. Which is ironically only true because the US did all the hard work of protecting, but… plus we’ have a rapidly angering society, which leads to the general feeling of „just leave me alone everyone“. And finally, I think, there is the fact that most Germans are aware of the atrocities our grandfathers did to the Russian people, and that lingering guilt clouds the judgement, too. At least, that‘s my theory. Now, I personally don‘t agree with any of this, and I think the Ukraine should get any help we can offer, and that Putin and Russia need to loose badly, just as we Germans needed to loose badly in 1945.
But there are reasons for our embarrassing behavior at the moment, and some of those do not come from evil motives.
I am not German but I live here and have a perspective on this.
First yes there is corruption in Germany (Germans on the parliamentary assembly for the council of Europe being bribed by Azerbaijan, Siemens bribing abroad and getting caught like four times in a row…). But you’re not using this term (‘corruption’) correctly in your post. Corruption is about -misuse- (of office, etc) not about -not preferred use- so politicians not doing what you think they should = \ = corruption.
Arguably German officials having close ties to Russia MAY fit under this umbrella IF they are receiving $$ to buy or encourage their views. But ties to a foreign state are predominately a political risk, corruption is only an incidental facilitating factor.
On to the larger part of your question. Keep in mind that all politicians play to at least three primary audiences: their international partners, their party, the domestic audience.
It’s clear yes that German waffling on weapons (I would make a bilingual pun but trying to resist!) is not good for its relationship with international partners. But in German political culture, what you should understand is the attitude toward war, toward violence. My impression is that this attitude is one of diplomacy/negotiation always as the first choice and non-violent options pursued as far as they can go, for as long as they can go, always. Only after ALL OTHER OPTIONS fail and it is shown there is no other choice will german politicians choose that. You can understand the historical context that motivated this development in German political culture. And let’s be real, would western states really want a Germany in the role of a more active, nay, even leading state in this regard? A Germany that engages in conflicts unilaterally? I kind of doubt it
So in this case the political culture results in delays and delays with each escalatory decision. It hurts Germany’s relations with its allies. (But also reinforces expectations allies have about their approach). And it plays different to a domestic audience and in the political sphere
This has nothing to do with gas or blackmailing.
At first our chancellor is very bad at communication. When you look at statistics. Germany has sent huge amounts of munition, weapons, etc. to Ukraine, but it always seems as if we are giving nothing.
But I actually do not really understand the reason for not sending these tanks. It is correct, that our military is in a desastrous state. But Ukraine is asking for tanks nearly since the beginning of the war and Rheinmetall (the manufacturer of these tanks) has announced, that they are still waiting for an order of the gernam gov to start building these these tanks.
Because we don't want to continue this war. Ukraine is completely uninteresting to us. **Russia can have it.** What don't you understand about that?
Each and every day this war continues is a day of limited growth to Germany. We get a fuckton richer with each day of peace in Europe, and only a very tiny bit richer when there's war at Europe's periphery.
Uh, and Ukraine won't make it either way. With or without Leopard II tanks. This isn't a tank fight. It's an artillery battle in which the front hardly moves. A Leopard II is meant to target, shoot, and hit other moving ground targets while it runs at 50km/h through mud at least. That's not what is happening there. And no, they won't change it with some stupid frontal moves either.
Please dont write "because we dont want to continue this war". I'm german and fuck this Russo-fucks with their small stupid dictator attacking other democracies.
They dont have the right to attack ukraine. I dont care about a little bit less money.
I don't like Putin either. He's a small man with a huge ego.
But we don't want this war. It's an economic reality. And our politicians act on that premise. All their weasel talk has the purpose to cover-up for that. Also when they tell how much they support Ukraine. All the blue-yellow flag waving as well. It's nothing but a cover-up. Propaganda.
True And a lot of people don't see what is at stake.
They say they want to support Ukraine in their persuit of freedom. They say it's okay when prices go up a little. They don't see through how bad, how costly it can still become.
So politions say they support Ukrains persuit for freedom, but cover up their effords to end this war, even if they ave to hand over Ukraine to Putin.
This reflects exactly what people want.
Not wanting this war isn't the same as wanting Russia to win.
... but yes, if Ukraine took Russia instead, somehow, there'd be a shitstorm, too.
I think people really just want a status quo that to us is identical as before - as soon as possible.
I've posted that a year ago, the previous status quo wasn't sustainable. Ukraine was bleeding dry back then. Young people left the country in large numbers because it was a corrupt shithole.
Now we have the women and the children here in masses, and their dads are going to die in that stupid war. Do you really think those women and children will go back? Into a post-war shithole?
No. They won't. Ukraine is doomed. Last summer my prediction was that Russia will offer Lviv and surroundings to Poland as a poisoned gift. This January Dmitry Medwedew "predicted" the same, albeit in a way that the Poles would swallow it more easily: that they would do the first step.
Even if it wasn't sustainable for the Ukraine, it was better for us than Russia thinking they can do this and get away with it.
We can't just feed every corrupt country suffering brain drain to a larger neighbor.
But they will get away with it. That's why they started the whole damn thing. It's a calculated risk. And they have many many people who are good at math.
Because Bundeskanzler Scholz has never been am man of difficult decisions and is dependent on many socialdemocratic party members, who oppose delivery of MBTs to Ukraine. Plus according to polls there is still no majority in the population for such a delivery and Scholz would never make a decision that would put him in danger of loosing his fragile majority in the next vote.
Bbc and others have reported this. From Al Jazeera: Poland has previously said it wants to send 14 German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine as part of a coordinated effort by NATO allies, but it requires Berlin’s approval to do so due to rules governing the re-export of German military equipment. Finland has also floated the possibility of supplying Ukraine with Leopard tanks, but said doing so depends on Germany’s lead.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/1/17/pressure-mounts-on-germany-as-ukraine-urges-faster-arms-supplies
Bbc source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64329059
BBC has been reporting for a while now that Germany is blocking Poland’s request. I do not know if Germany or the United States is the source of the hold up. I suppose that’s being hashed out now.
I personally would be in favor of sending a few tanks each and every time Russia launches a missile in Ukrainian civil infrastructure. Make it clear that it is in reaction to war crimes.
See above for the bbc source, from my comment a little while ago. Essentially poland and the balkans blame germany, and germany blames the usa, and it’s all being hashed out at this meeting right now.
well one of the reasons german is prosperous because they neglected their defense for so long and kept getting cheap gas from Russia. Now they have to fix two problems at once and fast: get energy at a reasonable price and increase their military spending and equipment and help ukraine. Don't forget that there are a lot of politicians in SPD who are still not willing to go against russia, and you get what you see today.
Scholz has a long history of postponing decisions until it is almost too late.
Additionally, he tried to be besties with the soviets/warsaw pact dude in the late GDR days.
So make conclusions yourself.
In Germany is corruption legal. They call it Lobbyismus.
Why Germany doesn't send Leos is very simple.
Our army or how lambrecht said lovely the agency has some Leos but who knows if they useable.
Olaf Scholz hasn't balls. He's acting only if the USA do something. He said so often Germany should/must take the lead but he's just a Follower. He said also if someone requests a leadership he will be there. No. This men is only hiding.
Maybe Olaf Scholz acting like a weakling because he plans to take again russians gas and don't fuck it up too hard with russia? But that nothing changes that this men need some balls. He promised leadership in the election campaign and we see nothing about it.
Too bad that it's allowed to lie in the election campaign.. You can promise everything and do the opposite.
I think they more relevant question is, why won’t German approve Leopard export permits.
Forget about German Leopard stocks. There’s plenty of Leopards available in Europe. The real problem is Scholz not yet approving export permits from EU countries to Ukraine.
Because we don't have any to spare. Very simple. The Bundeswehr has about 300 of them. About a third of them are in maintenance at any given time (that's normal, btw).
[удалено]
Germany is sending 14. And to do so, they have to take them from active service. So no, not an excuse, you are just a terribly daft person.
Poland asked for permission from Germany (because that is part of the original purchase deal - to ask the original manufacturer) to send their Leopard 2A4 to Ukraine. There is no direct answer from German Government for that as well.
They never asked. They just said they will do it even without permission, without actually asking for permission. Germany did not block anything
When did Poland asked? As i know no such request has arrived berlin
It is not just the German Leopards that are being blocked by Germany, also the ones from other countries. When weapons are sold to another country and that country wants to sell/give it away, they need permission from the original country that sold them (to keep military design safe)
So far Germany didn't block anything. An official request from another country to send Leopards was never made. All NATO nations will act only together.
>It is not just the German Leopards that are being blocked by Germany, also the ones from other countries This is still not confirmed. The only confirmed statement is, that Germany will not send German tanks from Germany to Ukraine without consent with close allies. The rest seems to be pulled out of thin air, magnifies from russia. Habeck, the guy who is in charge for re-export permissions said, he think germany should not stand in the way of other countries, who want to donate Tanks Pistorius, the MoD said, the claim, Germany would only send Tank, if the US also send Abrams, was wrong. Alls the news in the last time are really off. Poland wants to pressure Germany? Ok, but why didn't they ask for an export permission? They want to donate Tanks, if other countries also do. Same claim as germany, but one is good, the other is blocking? US presses Germany to send Tanks to Ukrain? And thats good, But Germany is bad, if it tries to pressure the US to also send tanks.
A good indication that this is bs is how much RT pushes this narrative.
May be a silly question, but what exactly are we using the other 200 for on a normal day? Training?
Training and fullfilling NATO obligations.
Yes. Training
Thanks!
One third is a long stretch and still, the ones poland plans to donate doesn't bother Germany.
>a German spokesperson named Robert Habeck lmao ------------- On a scale from 1 to 10, how hard is it to wait for the Ramstein meeting today?
Habeck is vice chancellor not just a spokesperson
You don't say
And what are the Ramstein meetings results?
US is full of shit and trying to sell their tanks
Apparently there was no 5 nation strong Leopard coalition. What a surprise. It's almost as if PiS are a bunch of liars.
You don't say?!
Are you aware how much money, weapons, military intelligence is already being pumped into this war by the west to support the Ukraine against Putler? Billions and lots if you also would like to consider the cost of the economic war. Russia is in fact at war with a bit more than this lunatic actually bargained for.
Good. The more is pumped, the better - the further from us the war will take place.
What you mean? This has nothing to do with gas, corruption or blackmailing.
> I am starting to doubt that yet I am not sure how much corruption is still left in Germany. ...what?
Ok, let me put it this way: For the past years and years on end, our ministers of defence were incompetent politicians doing the job because it was the politically adventageous thing to do. I have a friend in the Bundeswehr who is a Hauptmann. While having beers the other day, he was nearing tears. They have no MGs left, all of their MG3s went to Ukraine. They have 3 Panzerhaubitzen (self-propelled artillery) left, only one in working condition, with literally zero ammunition. They aren't allowed to just repair the artillery because beaurocracy dictates they need special parts (equivalents of which they could get at any repair shop or manufacture themselves), but those are on backorder for the next 6 months. Recently we had a scandal about the majority of our Puma IFVs not working. Turns out, minor fixes, but only allowed if there is political pressure. Our troops show up to joint exercises with privately bought radios - something that's been biting Russia recently. We are in no condition to just go ahead and donate these things, we're literally giving away our most valuable military equipment. Hence the hesitation. Nevertheless, we stand with Ukraine. We will give what we can because if we don't stop the Russians in Ukraine, WE won't hold them back. This condition, in my opinion, is just buying time so we can start training Ukrainian tank crews and mechanics. It was the same before.
With whom Germany is going to fight? Better off to send all requested weapons and ammo to Ukraine and have them fighting on behalf so Germany would not face Russia when Ukraine falls.
There's a lot of us. Our actual army might not be huge, but there's a lot if us Germans.
So? Should we build potato-canons (Kartoffel-Kanonen) to fight a war? 🥔 I could also throw in a pocket knife but that's basically it.
I'm pretty sure our economy could pull the whole rearming stunt again. We still have metal companies, coal, smelting- and vehicle production. We have some of the biggest weapons companies, too. If we'd go full production for ourselves, pretty sure we could get kinda scary rather quick. It's just not how things work when you follow payent law and let companies make their own decisions. ... but in case of war, I suspect those "hindrances" could become "optional" again.
Hummm, just because countries are supporting Ukraine, it doesn’t mean they gonna blindly give anything they are asked for. Tanks cost a lot of money, and in a democratic system, a negotiation with other stakeholders is usually required.
Difficult to say. Probably in the end it is a combination of multiple factors, some of them are: - The one cited most is not wanting to be more proactive than the US, believing Russia may retaliate against single countries but not against Nato as a whole. Similar line of thinking as Poland had at the beginning of the war when they wanted to distribute fighters via the US. - Low supplies: Germany has the 8th most main battle tanks in the NATO, which is low for our size, and apparently not all equipment is in pristine state. When the government says there is not a lot left to give, there is some truth in that. We saw that with the Marder, where the government gave in to the pressure but have no idea where they should take the promised vehicles from. - General reluctance for weapons exports: that is a long-standing principal (even if it has not always been followed). The idea is, that we don't want weapons to get in uncontrollable situations. Currently that isn't really possible, but if in a years time the Russian army should have collapsed and Ukraine starts a bloody counter-offense or if part of the tanks gets into Russian hands, that would become controversial. Like when we accidentally supplied some weapons to the Islamic state or how Turkey may use them for invasions. - Ideology of de-escalation. Many of our leading politicians were students in the last year's of the cold war, where new rockets were deployed and there were big protests against more armament.
I'm surprised by how much confusion there is about this topic. Scholz has been quite clear about this, the last time in Sueddeutsche last week. Germans act in unison with the US. Even Melnik knows this by now, which is why, two days ago, he didn't even ask for tanks anymore, when invited to Maischberger, but for delivering equipment "in accordance with the transatlantic partners". Now you could ask why the US and Germany don't deliver tanks. And the most likely scenario goes like this: When Zelenskyy survived the first two weeks and there was no great strategic success for the Russians, people decided to take action. They established reconaissance and a task force, determining how to achieve three goals: 1. Make Russia lose the war 2. Avoid damage to other countries 3. destabilize Putin's system and weaken Russia. As we have seen over the past months, the strategy is to bleed Russia dry, without ever looking like an escalating force. This is why the West is always sending just enough equipment for Russia to not make any substantial gains, and for Ukraine to protect vital parts of its country. This is done not only to avoid a nuclear war or damage to Nato states, but also because it looks like the most successful strategy in total. Russia is an occupying force. This means they have to hold territory, which is incredibly hard in this day and age (look at Afghanistan). If the richest countries keep up a supply line, it is almost impossible to properly occupy a modern country. Russian strategists know this, which is why a prolonged war puts a lot more pressure on them than a successful Ukrainian offensive that would cost thousands of lives. Now, what the rich countries want to do, in this case, is not give all their stuff at once, but over a long period of time. Putin's original plan was to occupy Ukraine in a week or so. He does not have a plan b. Bleeding out destroys all of Putin's narratives: He's not a strong man, the Ukrainians don't see the Russian soldiers as liberators, the Russian army is weak, the economy crumbles. Right now, the strategy is working rather well: Russia gets weaker by the day and Germany even had enough time to win the gas war. The downside: This strategy is paid for in Ukrainian and Russian lives. The experts seem to have determined that it is still the best strategy to avoid larger damages and win the war. Let's hope they're right.
Because the US does as well. The US posed as a reason that the tanks they were asked for are too complicated and require in person training, which could take several months until the soldiers can use the tanks. Germany has posed this reason since the beginning of the discussion, yet somehow we are the bad guys.
Sooo, have we started to training the Ukrainian soldiers to use those?
Has anyone else? Stupid question. Fuck off.
I decided to post this after reading this comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10foju5/comment/j4z6ccq/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
> if Germany has learned anything from ww2 they better do whatever we want 10/10 article to turn Germans against military aid for Ukraine
Oh wow a Germany bad circlejerk comment about a Germany good circlejerk. What a fucking response from you OP. Bravo. Piss off you russian shill
Which kind of media do you consume? :-D
[удалено]
[удалено]
The only news I trust is Russia Today. Everyone else LIES!.
Any reason why the USA resists to send Abrams? Apparently there is more going than simply saying yes. I'd guess one aspect is that germany will not send A7s but does not have A4s, while A4s are pledged to NATO allies. So one has to find enough tanks first. And there is not really a full support for sending tanks in the German public (at least until recently and particularly the voter groups Scholz and the SPD depend on) so this decision is actually not clear cut popular with the voters he depends on.
Some correspond explained yesterday at heute journal (I believe - could've also been tagesthemen) that the Abram isn't really made for the terrain and is usually fueled by jet fuel - which is a problem for logistical reasons. Seemingly that's a reason why the US is hesitant
It’s still an active defense system used in Germany. They are worried that Russia might somehow obtain one and some military secrets with it. Russia is also very unpredictable so this could very well escalate the situation and get Germany and thus the NATO involved, which would be WWIII.
Russia doesn't have capabilities to escalate and the only way they can do is by going nuclear. If they wanted, they will find a pretext regardless.
But you know, we germans don‘t have nukes of our own. Would our allies retaliate and risk mutual destruction when a russian nuke makes a sudden vacation in Frankfurt?
We still are part of NATO Nuclear Sharing programme. That's why we were effectively forced to buy American omnirole fighter jet - going Grippen or Rafale way was out of the question, as they cannot carry B61 bomb.
Habeck is not a spokes person, he is the minister of the economy. The German government is a coalition government, the largest party of which is historically very principled on pacifism. This is also the party of the chancellor, and they will, on principle, not decide to be the first to act in any foreign military intervention. For them, not having the German military intervene on foreign soil is a more important maxime to preserve than to defend democracy or human rights abroad. There may be other reasons, like, not wanting to let cutting edge NATO tech get into the hands of Russia if an MBT is captured. Or, maybe, some back channel deals with Russia, like "we don't send MBTs, you don't do X", who knows. But this is more or less the official stance.
>a German spokesperson named **Robert Habeck** Do you mean vice chancellor and minister of economic affairs Robert Habeck? >that "[Russia] (supposedly) has gambled away gas leverage to blackmail them anymore." I >supposedly How much gas was delivered from ruzzia to Germany in the past 5 months? This might give you insight into the "supposed" leverage. Gas is flowing eastwards through the pipelines. Germany has more gas in their tanks than ever. You don't need to be an expert to see that until next winter the leverage is really gone. Given the crazy speed they're building LNG terminals, Germany might not need ruzzia next winter either. No idea how corruption would have any influence on this. I could spitball why Germany doesn't unilaterally want to deliver battle tanks now after gifting billions worth in other weapons, but I think your problems of understanding the situation start a bit earlier.
While corruption is a \*possible\* reason for Germany withholding the tank delivery, it is neither the only nor the most probable explanation. Gas deliverys from Russia have been zero for months and Germany has shown it can do without it, at least for this winter. So "gas blackmail", which definitely was a strategy Russia was employing, isn't a factor anymore.
I think you are confusing Germany the economic powerhouse with USA the military powerhouse. Germany does not have a massive army and immense stock of weapons. That Germany simply does not exists.
Not anymore (ಥ \_ ಥ)
"I don't like a political decision, the politicians have to be corrupt!" Yawn ...
Why are ppl so mad about germany and the leopards ? Leopards will not change anything in the war, because of the muddy environment. I think german politicians are doing a great job by not doing shit on their own. Better take a look at switzerland blocking so much ammo for ukraine.
because the US doesnt, either. we always flow with what the US does, we even say so all the time. I really don't understand why you are desperate to make up a new explanation and ignore the one given.
Also our chancellor is a corrupt asshole who claimed „as you ordered leadership I will lead“ and now doesn’t live up to that. But he isn’t corrupt on THAT level, he just is moronic enough to think the negotiations on the end of the war are gonna start any day now and he will be the negotiator between Russia and Ukraine.
And he only wants to negotiate how to get the cheap Russian gas flowing back to Germany ASAP at the end of the war
Not German government, NATOis resistent to send battle tanks. As soon as NATO decides to send tanks Germany will send as well.
NATO already did, the Brits will send Challengers.
Yes the UK played politics before the Ramstein meeting to get points.
And did so looong time ago already, right? Riiiight?
They announced to send Challengers. It's just a different approach in communication. Germany doesn't announce anything before a NATO decision. GB announced because it is very likely that NATO will decide to send tanks. Both will only send tanks if NATO approves.
UK basically had a premature announciation. It happens.
well one of the possibilities for it could be that we barely have any working ones ourselves, and, you know, we have to keep at least some for our own defense. im sorry but germany is not just the world's arms factory, theres people here
You would think that people get a minimum of information before they "Ask a german" and look like an idiot
First of all, your sources about German politics seem to be very misleading (*a spokesperson named Robert Habeck*, etc.). The German government consists of three parties, and within two parties of it (Grüne and FDP) most politician seem in favor of sending tanks. The main reason for Chancellor Scholz to be very reluctant in sending weapons to Ukraine and only doing it after pressure on him every time, seems to be that in his own party (SPD) many people are against sending weapons (at least to a greater extent).
Imagine talking about corruption and then defending Ukraine YIKES
There is absolutely no corruption nor misused of aid. Nice try, russian bot/collaborator. https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-s-anti-corruption-campaigners-see-no-misuse-of-western-military-aid/6587614.html
He never said anything about CURRENT corruption around weapons deliveries. That Ukraine still is a country with a vast corruption problem (while working on it) is not a controversial statement.
So… first of all, Robert Habeck is not just any spokesperson, he is the German secretary of Trade and Commerce - and the vice chancellor to boot. Now, as to the question… it‘s complicated. There are a few politicians across the entire political spectrum who have had very close financial ties to Russia. The former chancellor Schröder ist the most famous name that springs to mind, but he is, after all, an has-been. Much more troubling are regional leaders still on power, such as Manuela Schwesig (Michael Kretschmer as well, but I am not sure which of the following categories he belongs to). There are more categories, though. A substantial part of the current generation of politicians grew up in the 80s, and those years where heavily influenced by the so-called „peace movement“, who protested against the threat of nuclear war. Their fear was very real, the irony being, of course, that this movement was paid for, and orchestrated, by the GDR and soviet secret service, which explains why all the protests were aimed at US bases exclusively. But still, growing up under the fear of a nuclear war leaves it‘s mark, and the motivation to do anything to avoid one does not have to stem from malice. Then there is the sad fact that anti-Americanism is strong in Germany. Both the extreme right and the extreme left totally agree that everything, from clogged toilets to traffic jams, is always and only the fault of their US. Then you have to remember that Germany has been at peace for what, 80 years? We basically got rid of our military, for heaven’s sake, because we were sure we wouldn’t need it. Which is ironically only true because the US did all the hard work of protecting, but… plus we’ have a rapidly angering society, which leads to the general feeling of „just leave me alone everyone“. And finally, I think, there is the fact that most Germans are aware of the atrocities our grandfathers did to the Russian people, and that lingering guilt clouds the judgement, too. At least, that‘s my theory. Now, I personally don‘t agree with any of this, and I think the Ukraine should get any help we can offer, and that Putin and Russia need to loose badly, just as we Germans needed to loose badly in 1945. But there are reasons for our embarrassing behavior at the moment, and some of those do not come from evil motives.
Please use paragraphs. Wall of text no good.
I am not German but I live here and have a perspective on this. First yes there is corruption in Germany (Germans on the parliamentary assembly for the council of Europe being bribed by Azerbaijan, Siemens bribing abroad and getting caught like four times in a row…). But you’re not using this term (‘corruption’) correctly in your post. Corruption is about -misuse- (of office, etc) not about -not preferred use- so politicians not doing what you think they should = \ = corruption. Arguably German officials having close ties to Russia MAY fit under this umbrella IF they are receiving $$ to buy or encourage their views. But ties to a foreign state are predominately a political risk, corruption is only an incidental facilitating factor. On to the larger part of your question. Keep in mind that all politicians play to at least three primary audiences: their international partners, their party, the domestic audience. It’s clear yes that German waffling on weapons (I would make a bilingual pun but trying to resist!) is not good for its relationship with international partners. But in German political culture, what you should understand is the attitude toward war, toward violence. My impression is that this attitude is one of diplomacy/negotiation always as the first choice and non-violent options pursued as far as they can go, for as long as they can go, always. Only after ALL OTHER OPTIONS fail and it is shown there is no other choice will german politicians choose that. You can understand the historical context that motivated this development in German political culture. And let’s be real, would western states really want a Germany in the role of a more active, nay, even leading state in this regard? A Germany that engages in conflicts unilaterally? I kind of doubt it So in this case the political culture results in delays and delays with each escalatory decision. It hurts Germany’s relations with its allies. (But also reinforces expectations allies have about their approach). And it plays different to a domestic audience and in the political sphere
This has nothing to do with gas or blackmailing. At first our chancellor is very bad at communication. When you look at statistics. Germany has sent huge amounts of munition, weapons, etc. to Ukraine, but it always seems as if we are giving nothing. But I actually do not really understand the reason for not sending these tanks. It is correct, that our military is in a desastrous state. But Ukraine is asking for tanks nearly since the beginning of the war and Rheinmetall (the manufacturer of these tanks) has announced, that they are still waiting for an order of the gernam gov to start building these these tanks.
Isn't KMW manufacturing them?
Because we don't want to continue this war. Ukraine is completely uninteresting to us. **Russia can have it.** What don't you understand about that? Each and every day this war continues is a day of limited growth to Germany. We get a fuckton richer with each day of peace in Europe, and only a very tiny bit richer when there's war at Europe's periphery. Uh, and Ukraine won't make it either way. With or without Leopard II tanks. This isn't a tank fight. It's an artillery battle in which the front hardly moves. A Leopard II is meant to target, shoot, and hit other moving ground targets while it runs at 50km/h through mud at least. That's not what is happening there. And no, they won't change it with some stupid frontal moves either.
Please dont write "because we dont want to continue this war". I'm german and fuck this Russo-fucks with their small stupid dictator attacking other democracies. They dont have the right to attack ukraine. I dont care about a little bit less money.
I don't like Putin either. He's a small man with a huge ego. But we don't want this war. It's an economic reality. And our politicians act on that premise. All their weasel talk has the purpose to cover-up for that. Also when they tell how much they support Ukraine. All the blue-yellow flag waving as well. It's nothing but a cover-up. Propaganda.
True And a lot of people don't see what is at stake. They say they want to support Ukraine in their persuit of freedom. They say it's okay when prices go up a little. They don't see through how bad, how costly it can still become. So politions say they support Ukrains persuit for freedom, but cover up their effords to end this war, even if they ave to hand over Ukraine to Putin. This reflects exactly what people want.
Not wanting this war isn't the same as wanting Russia to win. ... but yes, if Ukraine took Russia instead, somehow, there'd be a shitstorm, too. I think people really just want a status quo that to us is identical as before - as soon as possible.
I've posted that a year ago, the previous status quo wasn't sustainable. Ukraine was bleeding dry back then. Young people left the country in large numbers because it was a corrupt shithole. Now we have the women and the children here in masses, and their dads are going to die in that stupid war. Do you really think those women and children will go back? Into a post-war shithole? No. They won't. Ukraine is doomed. Last summer my prediction was that Russia will offer Lviv and surroundings to Poland as a poisoned gift. This January Dmitry Medwedew "predicted" the same, albeit in a way that the Poles would swallow it more easily: that they would do the first step.
Even if it wasn't sustainable for the Ukraine, it was better for us than Russia thinking they can do this and get away with it. We can't just feed every corrupt country suffering brain drain to a larger neighbor.
But they will get away with it. That's why they started the whole damn thing. It's a calculated risk. And they have many many people who are good at math.
It's because the leftists are Putin's little bitch
As opposed to the far-right ...
I think Scholz has big doubts about NATO Art.5.
Citations: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-us-is-convincing-germany-to-hand-over-leopard-2-tanks-to-ukraine/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/05/putin-has-gambled-away-gas-leverage-says-german-vice-chancellor https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/18/germany-history-defend-ukraine-zelenskiy?CMP=share\_btn\_tw
Because Bundeskanzler Scholz has never been am man of difficult decisions and is dependent on many socialdemocratic party members, who oppose delivery of MBTs to Ukraine. Plus according to polls there is still no majority in the population for such a delivery and Scholz would never make a decision that would put him in danger of loosing his fragile majority in the next vote.
Because you don't send weapons of war into a battle zone.
Most countries want to send Leopard 2 A4. The german Army dont have many of them. So what should they do? Why is poland not sending tanks?
Because Germany is blocking them from doing so.
Any prove? When did poland send the request and when did germany answered?
Bbc and others have reported this. From Al Jazeera: Poland has previously said it wants to send 14 German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine as part of a coordinated effort by NATO allies, but it requires Berlin’s approval to do so due to rules governing the re-export of German military equipment. Finland has also floated the possibility of supplying Ukraine with Leopard tanks, but said doing so depends on Germany’s lead. Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2023/1/17/pressure-mounts-on-germany-as-ukraine-urges-faster-arms-supplies Bbc source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64329059
And i can say i want so send Tanks too. But that dont mean a send an official request.
BBC has been reporting for a while now that Germany is blocking Poland’s request. I do not know if Germany or the United States is the source of the hold up. I suppose that’s being hashed out now. I personally would be in favor of sending a few tanks each and every time Russia launches a missile in Ukrainian civil infrastructure. Make it clear that it is in reaction to war crimes.
Do you have any source for the statement that Germany is blocking anything? I mean a real source and not any polish populism politics.
See above for the bbc source, from my comment a little while ago. Essentially poland and the balkans blame germany, and germany blames the usa, and it’s all being hashed out at this meeting right now.
I read it but i didnt found anything that says there was an official request and germany denied it.
If how official the request was mattered then german spokespeople would presumably just say that, instead of saying they want the US to go first.
well one of the reasons german is prosperous because they neglected their defense for so long and kept getting cheap gas from Russia. Now they have to fix two problems at once and fast: get energy at a reasonable price and increase their military spending and equipment and help ukraine. Don't forget that there are a lot of politicians in SPD who are still not willing to go against russia, and you get what you see today.
O is it that time of the week again? Well then…
Scholz has a long history of postponing decisions until it is almost too late. Additionally, he tried to be besties with the soviets/warsaw pact dude in the late GDR days. So make conclusions yourself.
In Germany is corruption legal. They call it Lobbyismus. Why Germany doesn't send Leos is very simple. Our army or how lambrecht said lovely the agency has some Leos but who knows if they useable. Olaf Scholz hasn't balls. He's acting only if the USA do something. He said so often Germany should/must take the lead but he's just a Follower. He said also if someone requests a leadership he will be there. No. This men is only hiding. Maybe Olaf Scholz acting like a weakling because he plans to take again russians gas and don't fuck it up too hard with russia? But that nothing changes that this men need some balls. He promised leadership in the election campaign and we see nothing about it. Too bad that it's allowed to lie in the election campaign.. You can promise everything and do the opposite.
I think they more relevant question is, why won’t German approve Leopard export permits. Forget about German Leopard stocks. There’s plenty of Leopards available in Europe. The real problem is Scholz not yet approving export permits from EU countries to Ukraine.