Follow us on social

Amx-10_rc_nouvelles_couleurs_armee_de_terre_14_juillet_2021_2-scaled

How Western tanks could change Ukraine’s war effort

New armored fighting vehicles could help Kyiv retake territory, but they also increase the risk of nuclear escalation from Moscow.

Reporting | Europe

On Wednesday, France announced plans to send light tanks to Ukraine, marking the first time that a Western country has supplied Kyiv with armored combat vehicles. Not to be outdone, unnamed U.S. officials told the Washington Post that the United States intends to share some of its own infantry fighting vehicles, with one source saying that the first shipment could be publicized as soon as this week.

The new weapons could make a significant difference in the conflict, which has fallen into a grinding stalemate as Russia and Ukraine continue to dig into their positions along the frontlines. Kyiv has already seen some success in using armor to retake territory from Moscow, and American Bradley Fighting Vehicles could help bring those efforts to the next level, according to Lyle Goldstein of Defense Priorities.

“To the credit of the Ukrainian commanders, they have managed to create some interesting tactics here,” Goldstein said, noting that Kyiv has used simpler armored vehicles like MRAPs in a sort of “Blitzkrieg-light” whereby its soldiers penetrate well beyond the front lines and “create chaos in the rear of the Russian forces.” New tanks and combat vehicles could make this tactic more effective, potentially helping to break the stalemate in the east.

There are, of course, a couple of limits to this approach. First, as Goldstein notes, “traditional military theory would hold that this is really impossible without air cover,” and Ukrainian air power “remains extremely limited.” In other words, it’s unclear whether Kyiv has all the necessary tools to take full advantage of its new armor.

The second drawback is somewhat more dramatic. If these vehicles help Ukraine take back more Russian-held territory, much of which Moscow now considers to be part of Russia, then the Kremlin may resort to the use of so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons — nukes that are smaller than strategic warheads but still at least as big as the bombs the United States dropped on Japan in World War II.

Russian analysts have largely stopped discussing tactical nukes since a flurry of chatter last fall. But Goldstein worries that a successful offensive could make Russian President Vladimir Putin reach for his trump card, and tanks would likely be an “appetizing target” for such a move. 

The main obstacle standing between Putin and the nuclear button is the “nuclear taboo,” which posits that rational leaders are too wary of their international reputation to use the ultimate weapon. 

“But we’re in the realm of desperate actions,” Goldstein argued. “I don't think Russia is worrying too much about their reputation.”


French soldiers drive an AMX-10 RC light tank through the streets of Paris after their annual Bastille Day march. France announced Wednesday that it would send an unspecified number of these combat vehicles to Ukraine. (Image credit: Kevin.B, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
Reporting | Europe
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.