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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.