Other View: Sending tanks to Ukraine only deepens our already-unclear involvement
From the editorial: "What’s needed most aren’t tanks but an exit strategy."
If President Joe Biden has a coherent strategy for ending the Ukraine war, now would be an opportune time to deploy it.
Last week, Biden announced the U.S. would provide Ukraine with 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks. That’s the U.S.’s main battle tank, which our country has used for four decades. In tandem with Biden’s decision, Germany and other European allies said they, too, would provide tanks. Politico reported that European countries will send enough for two tank battalions.
This decision is a significant reversal. For months, U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, maintained that the Abrams was too complex to be of much help. It’s not even clear where the tanks are coming from. The U.S. has more than 4,000 of them, but a White House official said there’s not an “excess stock,” per AP reporting. The training, which will happen outside Ukraine, will take time, too.
U.S. officials have long thought it would be better to send German Leopard 2 tanks, which are easier to use. There are around 2,000 of those tanks throughout Europe. Perhaps Biden’s decision is more about providing political cover for Germany and other countries to send those vehicles.
This is a significant shift in posture. Western officials have long provided Ukraine with defensive weapons, especially as the country showed incredible resolve in resisting the invasion. But they’ve been slower to provide offensive weapons, like modern tanks.
That reserve was an appropriate display of restraint given the situation. Russia’s inability to conquer Ukraine shows it’s no longer the dominant military power it once was. That’s worth celebrating. But Russia still has nuclear weapons and is run by a de facto dictator.
Sending tanks makes this look much more like a proxy war. How would Russia respond if Ukraine used those tanks for offensive operations inside Russia? That could have major ramifications for NATO, which has a pledge of collective defense. Providing tanks increases the possibility of regional or global conflict. These decisions aren’t straightforward, and this consideration is a real trade-off.
Further complicating the situation is Ukrainian corruption. Also last week, nine senior Ukrainian officials lost their positions amid scandals. One official, who previously worked in President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office, is being investigated for embezzling millions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Not great.
What’s needed most aren’t tanks but an exit strategy. That probably will require allowing Russia to save face, even as it loses militarily. Perhaps that’s in the works, but Biden has provided precious little evidence of it so far.
— Las Vegas Review-Journal (reviewjournal.com)