Follow us on social


Six questions Western defense chiefs never seem to raise but should today

The pressure is on to supply Ukraine more advanced weapons. How does this fit into a broader strategy to end the war?

Analysis | Europe

When top U.S. and European defense officials meet at Ramstein Air Base in Germany on Friday to discuss the war in Ukraine, the biggest issue on the agenda will be how the coalition can continue to supply Ukraine with more sophisticated weapon systems.

Specifically, the Ukraine Contact Group, a formal assembly of some 50 nations, will be discussing tanks. Pressure will be on Germany to yield to demands from Britain, Poland, and the Baltic States to send Leopard 2 main battle tanks to Ukraine, and allow other NATO countries that have the tanks to do so too. 

This would mark a significant advancement in Western military assistance to Ukraine. It could be seen as an escalation. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has opposed sending the Leopards, despite intense pressure, including from members of his own coalition. He told the Guardian on Wednesday that “we want to avoid this becoming a war between Russia and NATO.” Later in the day, German officials told reporters it would not send Panthers unless the U.S. gave Ukraine American–made tanks, according to the Wall Street Journal.

(Update: on Monday, Polish officials said they might send their German-made Leopards to Ukraine whether Germany gives its approval or not.)

So far, the United States has refrained from sending its own M-1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, though like Germany, it has sent infantry fighting vehicles (often misleadingly called “tanks”) and heavy artillery. The Biden administration has welcomed Britain’s promise to send 12 Challenger tanks. This is purely symbolic. On the other hand, the transfer of Leopards (Ukraine has said that it needs 300 Western tanks) would be an altogether more serious affair, even though it would take time to train Ukrainian troops to use them. 

Any additional dispatch of additional Patriot anti-missile batteries is far less controversial, because they will be used to defend Ukrainian infrastructure from Russian missiles — a goal on which all NATO countries are agreed.

The discussion of how far the West should go in supplying advanced tanks is important but it raises critical, strategic questions about where the coalition truly wants from what could be interpreted as an escalation by Russia. The following are the key questions they should be asking themselves — but likely are not.

1.  How do our plans for military assistance to Ukraine fit into our broader strategy for ending the war?  

2.  Given the Biden administration's justified desire to avoid a direct military conflict with Russia, what should the allies be doing to prevent an incremental slide into ever deeper U.S. involvement, as happened in Vietnam? 

3. What should the U.S. and NATO be doing to plan for surprise Russian moves, such as disabling satellites vital to U.S./Ukrainian command and control of precision-guided munitions? 

4. Are these partner governments prepared to back Ukraine to reconquer all the territory it has lost since 2014 — including Crimea and the eastern Donbas as suggested in this Wednesday New York Times article — even at the risk of Russia escalating towards war with NATO and the use of nuclear weapons?

5. If not, at what stage and along what lines do they want Ukraine to call a halt, and what pressure are they prepared to bring to bear in order to achieve this?

6. If neither side achieves a breakthrough and the war becomes a stalemate, at what stage will the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure and the cost of supporting Ukraine necessitate the search for a ceasefire?

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley conduct a press conference at the conclusion of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, Sept. 8, 2022. (DoD photo by Chad J. McNeeley)
Analysis | Europe
Labour's delusions about UK foreign policy

British Labour Party leader Keir Starmer and British Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy walk in Westminster, London, Britain, February 22, 2022. REUTERS/Tom Nicholson

Labour's delusions about UK foreign policy


When it comes to foreign and security policy, the new British Labour government has inherited a very bad hand from its predecessors, which it would take great skill to play with any success. Unfortunately, judging by its statements so far, not only does the new administration lack such skill, it is not even sure what game it is playing.

With the partial exception of policy towards the EU, it does not in fact appear that Labour policy will differ significantly from that of the Conservatives. Nor indeed can it differ, if it is determined to go on operating within the very narrow parameters laid down by the British foreign and security establishment. The unconditional allegiance of this establishment to the United States makes even thinking about British national interests difficult, if not impossible.

keep readingShow less
Menendez's corruption is just the tip of the iceberg

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) looks on, following his bribery trial in connection with an alleged corrupt relationship with three New Jersey businessmen, in New York City, U.S., July 16, 2024. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Menendez's corruption is just the tip of the iceberg


Today, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) became the first U.S. senator ever to be convicted of acting as an unregistered foreign agent. While serving as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Menendez ghost-wrote a letter and approved arms sales on behalf of the Egyptian regime in exchange for bribes, among other crimes on behalf of foreign powers in a sweeping corruption case. An Egyptian businessman even referred to Menendez in a text to a military official as “our man.”

In a statement, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said Menendez was engaging in politics for profit. "Because Senator Menendez has now been found guilty, his years of selling his office to the highest bidder have finally come to an end,” he said.

keep readingShow less
European parliament takes a hard line on Iran

France, Strasbourg, 2023-12-13. Member of the European Parliament Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance Hannah Neumann in the Meeting of European Parliament Plenary session - Council and Commission statements - European Defense investment program (EDIP). Photograph by Genevieve Engel via REUTERS

European parliament takes a hard line on Iran


As Iran’s president-elect Massoud Pezeshkian is sending messages about his readiness to reengage with the West, the newly elected European Parliament seems to be moving ever further in a hawkish direction. That can be concluded from the appointment of the German Green Party lawmaker Hannah Neumann to chair the EP’s delegation to Iran in the assembly. Save for a major, and unlikely, upset, she’ll be formally endorsed in that position when the body reconvenes after its summer recess.

According to European Parliament rules, the task of inter-parliamentary delegations is to maintain and deepen relations with the parliaments of non-EU countries. Delegations are not the most influential bodies in the EU but they can offer a valuable channel of communication with third countries, particularly in cases when official relations are strained, as is the case with Iran. Or, alternatively, they can become a forum for ventilating grievances against those countries, thus contributing to shaping negative narratives and creating a political climate detrimental to productive diplomacy.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis



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.