Follow us on social

Shutterstock_738877015-scaled

US, Germany to send tanks to Ukraine in major reversal: reports

The decision could make a major difference on the battlefield but risks provoking a Russian escalation.

Reporting | Europe

In a major reversal, Germany and the United States will send their top-of-the-line battle tanks to Ukraine, though it could be months before they see the battlefield, according to new reports from Politico and the Associated Press.

The decision comes after a week of tense negotiations in which Berlin made clear that it did not want to be the first to provide Kyiv with tanks, which Moscow will no doubt view as a significant escalation of NATO involvement in the conflict. U.S. officials also hesitated to send M1 Abrams tanks, arguing that they would be logistically complicated for Ukraine to operate and require extensive training. 

The deal will end Berlin’s opposition to other states sending their own Leopard tanks, which are made by German companies, to Ukraine.

Suzanne Loftus, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute, worries that the West’s reversal on tanks could “encourage a retaliatory response from Russia that will be even more escalatory.”

“This is going to help feed the narrative that Russia is in a war with NATO,” Loftus added, noting that she expects that many Russians will react to the move with “more anti-westernism and more support rallying around the flag.”

The controversy also “reflects a lack of consensus in the West over how to end the war successfully,” according to George Beebe of the Quincy Institute. Poland, the United Kingdom, and the Baltic states have advocated total victory in Ukraine since the early days of the war, while Germany and France have expressed doubts about the possibility of such an outcome.

“U.S. thinking on this debate appears to be in flux,” said Beebe, who previously led Russia analysis at the CIA. While American officials used to dodge questions of “total victory,” the Biden administration is now reportedly encouraging Ukraine to threaten Russian control of Crimea, possibly in order to force Moscow to the negotiating table.

“This tactic, however, risks precipitating an escalatory reaction from Russia, which so far has refrained from actions that might produce a direct war with the West,” he added.

As RS has previously reported, the tanks will likely give Ukraine a significant boost in its efforts to retake land in its east, possibly including Crimea, which Russia has held since 2014. While the United States had previously sent armored vehicles like the Bradley fighting vehicle, tanks are a much more effective tool for a Ukrainian counter-offensive, according to Dan Grazier of the Project on Government Oversight.

“A main battle tank driving down the middle of a street in a war zone — that’s a real symbol of military power,” said Grazier. “Tanks are not invulnerable, but they’re a lot less vulnerable than other things like Strykers and Bradleys.”

It remains unclear how long it will take for Western tanks to reach the front lines in Ukraine. Grazier, who previously led tank training for the Marines at Fort Knox, noted that introductory training on an Abrams usually takes about three months. And AP reported that the American tanks will be produced to meet Ukraine’s demand instead of being taken from existing stockpiles, meaning that shipments could take from months to years to arrive.


A side view of a M1 Abrams main battle tank. (Shutterstock/ StockPhotosLV)
Reporting | Europe
US Navy Arctic
Top photo credit: Cmdr. Raymond Miller, commanding officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge (DDG 96), looks out from the bridge wing as the ship operates with Royal Norwegian replenishment oiler HNoMS Maud (A-530) off the northern coast of Norway in the Norwegian Sea above the Arctic Circle, Aug. 27, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Cesar Licona)

The rising US-NATO-Russia security dilemma in the Arctic

North America

An ongoing Great Power tit-for-tat in which U.S./NATO and Russian warships and planes approach each other’s territories in the Arctic, suggests a sense of growing instability in the region.

This uptick in military activities risks the development of a security dilemma: one state or group of states increasing their security presence or capabilities creates insecurity in other states, prompting them to respond similarly.

keep readingShow less
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

keep readingShow less
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

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.