By Kiera McLaughlin ’26
Staff Writer
Over the past week, discussion of Germany donating Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine has created upheaval in the international community. On Jan. 20, 2023, The New York Times reported that “billions of dollars in new arms for Ukraine” from NATO allies were announced, “including British tanks, American fighting vehicles and howitzers from Denmark and Sweden.” This is in light of the plan for Ukraine to go on the offensive in the spring, which is creating a pressing timeline for countries to equip Ukraine with much-needed supplies.
Originally, German officials said that they would “send Leopard tanks, and authorize others to, if the United States sent its M-1 Abrams tank as well,” as reported by The New York Times. The U.S. rejected this plan, saying, “the [M-1 Abrams] is such a gas guzzler. … and requires such a supply line to keep running that it would not be useful in Ukraine’s environment,” compared to the Leopard 2 tank, which is a more “natural choice for Ukraine because it is easier to operate and there are already hundreds potentially available in Europe,” as reported in the same article.
In an interview with the Mount Holyoke News, Andrew Reiter, professor of politics and international relations at Mount Holyoke, commented on the importance of these tanks. “They are effective. They are important. They’re also very symbolic.”
Over the following days, the United States and Germany made a deal to officially send Leopard 2 tanks and Abrams tanks to support Ukraine. On Jan. 25, 2023, The New York Times announced that Germany would be providing 14 Leopard 2 tanks and the United States would supply 31 Abrams tanks for the Ukrainian efforts. Germany’s decision to finally send tanks opens up the ability for other European countries to grant Ukraine their own Leopard 2 tanks. This announcement “prompted Finland, the Netherlands and Spain to say that they would also send tanks to Ukraine or were open to doing so,” as reported by The New York Times.
In response to Germany’s new involvement, student Anno Kostava ’24 said, “To Ukraine, the weapons are very much needed.” She continued, “it does make me feel hopeful about how the war might progress in the future.”
“To Ukraine, the weapons are very much needed. It does make me feel hopeful about how the war might progress in the future.”
Before this announcement, the international community was extremely frustrated by Germany’s lack of action. The New York Times reported that Steven E. Sokol, the president of the American Council on Germany, said, “Germans want to be seen as a partner, not an aggressor, and they have a particular sensitivity to delivering arms in regions where German arms were historically used to kill millions of people. … People do not want German weapons on the front lines being used to kill people in those regions.” This history has deeply influenced Germany’s reluctance to provide military weapons to Ukraine.
Providing a different outlook, “Heinrich Brauss, a former German general now with the German Council on Foreign Relations, argued that defeating Russia in Ukraine is in Germany’s self-interest, because the Ukrainians are fighting for European security,” reported The New York Times. When asked about Germany’s reluctance and the reasoning behind it, Reiter stated, “The big fear, of course, is if it’s Ukraine now and then five years later it’ll be somewhere else and 10 years later it’ll be somewhere else.”
Germany’s history is perceived differently around the world. Kostava shared, “many, and I think myself included, might interpret Germany’s carefulness with … siding with Russia in the past.” As reported by The New York Times, Claudia Major of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs references this convoluted history, saying, “We did so much harm to the Soviet Union we can’t do this again, we say, but we equalize it with Russia and forget that Ukraine took it the worst.”
Speaking further about Germany’s military aid, Kostava looked to the future. “I do think that this is a lot about Germany’s future politics,” Kostava stated. “So I think it’s a good start.”
Time is a huge component of war, and although Germany has decided to send the tanks, The New York Times reports that “it may be months before the tanks rumble across the battlefield.”
Reiter stated, “Timing is important, very important. Because both sides are planning different types of offensive maneuvers, and sometimes whoever’s work goes first has the initiative, and the other people then can’t launch an offensive because they’re busy moving their troops to be on the defensive there.”
“Timing is important, very important. Because both sides are planning different types of offensive maneuvers, and sometimes whoever’s work goes first has the initiative, and the other people then can’t launch an offensive because they’re busy moving their troops to be on the defensive there.”
Along with the complicated task of physically moving the tanks to Ukraine, the Ukrainian military needs to be trained and equipped with the resources to fuel and take care of these machines. Kostava made it clear that, while she is hopeful, time is a huge looming factor in this war. “I don’t know what the time will tell in the future [because] three months is a lot of time for the war to progress, so … we have to see.”