Should US send Ukraine 30 tanks at $9 million each?

[Anonymous]

They cost $9 million each and why does Ukraine need them if they are kicking Russia's ass as Western Media reports?

Don't send them

Yes Send them

[nightdrot]

Yes. Not because the United States has an interest in Ukraine winning the war against Russia. Indeed, Ukraine is not apt to win outright. Rather, because the USA has an interest in Ukraine not losing the war. In that context it being important to add that the US has interests in Ukraine, but such interests are secondary and derivative.

Best to start by recalling that through most of American history, Ukraine was part of Imperial Russia and from 1920 to 1991 the Soviet Union. This having no noticeable or deleterious impact on the American global strategic position.

Ukraine's current significance to the USA is rather based on its impact on several NATO allies. This especially true of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania and to a lesser extent Hungary. The loss of Ukraine to Russia, absent American security assurances to those aforementioned states, would undermine their strategic position and likely result in the collapse of NATO.

Please also note that the dispute over Ukraine has already, in any case, divided NATO. Britain has been aggressive about sending weapons and diplomatic support to Ukraine. By contrast, Germany is seeking to develop its economic and trade ties with Russia, while using NATO security assurances to protect its own security interests. France, (with some sotto voce help from Italy) in all this, has been quietly seeking to entangle Russia more deeply in Europe, thereby making it a counterweight to German influence in the EU.

Put simply, there is a tangle of conflicting interests not just between NATO and Russia, but within NATO. Thus, to use an extreme example, for the United States to step in with a direct military intervention would likely please Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK, but it would shatter German ties with NATO. This then effectively render NATO "null and void" as it is the fastest strategic access point to eastern Europe, including Russia.

Further, any confrontation between the United States and Russia plays out to the strategic advantage of the People's Republic of China. If the Americans and Russians are engaged in a conflict, (again, assuming that it does not go nuclear in which events all bets are off), China is left a free hand toward Taiwan and the South China Sea, This also meaning, in effect, that the USA would be abandoning Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand.

Put simply, the United States cannot walk away from Ukraine, but its interests require that it avoid war. Consequently, there is little beyond diplomatic and economic sanctions that the United States can offer, and even the extent of these are not obvious. A direct military conflict between the USA and Russia would split NATO, to the latter's advantage, and give China a free hand.

This is a game of three dimensional chess and not simply a test of wills. The historic interests of the major European powers are at play and in this case American direct interests are secondary. For the USA, this is about reassuring NATO's eastern flank, balancing the interests of NATO's other major members - the UK, France, Germany and Italy - in order to keep the alliance whole.

This is not a mere contest of muscle. Suffice to add that it would be profoundly dangerous to see it in such simplistic terms.

[Matthias345]

We know very well that at some point the United States will tell Ukraine to make peace.

The US needs to maintain a certain level of weapons stockpiles because it has other interests at stake, especially against China. If the U. S. wants to ignore these parameters, then China, seeing that the U. S. no longer has enough stockpiles, will feel freer to act accordingly, because it will have seen that the U. S. has given much of its stockpiles to Ukraine.

It is certain that the USA will not take this risk, so once a certain stock limit is reached, the Americans will say stop to Ukraine and make peace.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 That may very well be that the USA will pressure Ukraine to make peace. However, even that would be problematic as it would send a signal to China that with the right pressure, the USA might cede Taiwan.

Further, yes, the USA does need to maintain certain weapons stockpiles. However, we are a far cry from reaching the limits and given the pressure from the GOP and even from some Senate Democrats to increase defense spending, Congress is as apt to see the drawdown of such stockpiles as an opportunity to increase spending as anything else.

Bottom line, you may not be wrong, but the variables you are taking for granted - not least as regards the impact on China relations - cannot be waived away. This is, as I say, a much more complex puzzle than advocates on both sides of the aisle have appreciated to date.

[exitseven]

I think we have sent enough for now. Lets see how much the other NATO countries pony up if the US suddenly grows a brain.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[purplepoppy]

The UK is sending 14. When you consider the huge size difference between USA and UK that makes the 30 USA tanks look megre

[Leopard23]

Why not? The M1 Abrahams was designed in the 70s built in the 80s so even with the updates it's 40 years old and the army is looking to replace it anyway with new tanks. Its not like we are going to build more M1 Abrahams.

We've huge stockpiles of cold war era weapons systems in service and stockpiled that the US military is looking to get rid of or replace so why not give them to Ukraine. Whole fields of F16s, F15s, F4s some of which have never been flown. Millions of M16s &M4s that are stockpiled never fired or ex service weapons a long with 5.56mm that is being replaced with a new weapon with new rounds.

[Adam1978]

Haven't you followed the news, they only wins in kills right now, the front is at almost stand still. Russia has payed expensive prices for a few villages. If you want to end the fight faster they need as much resources as possible.

[strateguy632]

no only rockets for defense and only from company unless old

[gorydetails]

Nope. It's time to cut off the money laundering scheme.