Don’t Miss a Post. Subscribe now.

White House Approves Sending 31 Abrams Tanks to Ukraine Against Pentagon Advice

“Today I am announcing that the United States will be sending 31 Abram tanks to Ukraine. [Defense] Secretary [Lloyd] Austin has recommended this step because it will enhance the Ukraine’s capacity to defend its territory and achieve its strategic objective.” 

The Wall Street Journal reports White House Approves Sending Abrams Tanks to Ukraine

The White House formally announced on Wednesday that it is sending 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, part of a coordinated move in which Germany and other European nations will also send their own tanks to the fight in time for a coming offensive.

The move quashes, for now, the rumblings of dissension within an alliance that formed last year to support Ukraine.

German domestic political concerns drove the reluctance of the government of Chancellor Olaf Scholz to provide German-made tanks without the U.S. pledging its own tanks first. The issue threatened to become the first significant wrinkle in an alliance which has more or less stayed together since the Russian invasion.

Asked by a reporter whether Germany forced him to change his mind on sending tanks, Mr. Biden said, “Germany didn’t force me to change my mind. I wanted to make sure we were all together.”

But unlike most of the other weaponry the U.S. has sent to Ukraine, the Abrams tanks will take “months, not weeks” to arrive in Ukraine, because they are being procured through the defense industry as opposed to being taken out of American stocks, the official said.

Against Pentagon’s Advice

The WSJ had an article out the other day noting the Pentagon objected to sending those tanks. 

That headline, appears to be scrubbed.

I did locate this blurb in What Makes the M1 Abrams So Critical to the Russia-Ukraine War?

Named for Gen. Creighton Abrams, a World War II tank commander, the first Abrams entered service with the U.S. Army in 1980. Intended initially to fight the Soviets in Germany’s strategic Fulda Gap, the Abrams has been updated several times with a larger cannon and improvements to its armor, transmission and drivetrain. Over the years, the Pentagon has purchased more than 7,000 of the tanks in various configurations, according to the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the Library of Congress.

But throughout its service, soldiers and war planners have been concerned about the tank’s huge fuel consumption and limited range, and the long logistics and maintenance train that follows the Abrams into combat. Those, among other factors, made the Pentagon reluctant to send Ukraine tanks.

A battalion of 58 tanks requires dozens of support vehicles and hundreds of soldiers to keep it running—a formula known in military circles as the tooth-to-tail ratio. Those could include armored ambulances, command vehicles, maintenance trucks, and trucks to tow disabled tanks. The trucks have to haul fuel, ammunition, lubricants, engine oil, hydraulic fluid and extremely heavy spare parts.

“Everything that’s associated with the tank is heavy,” said Dan Grazier, a former Marine Corps tank officer. 

“If we gave the Ukrainians tanks and we didn’t give them everything they need to support them logistically, then we would hardly be doing them any favors,” he said. “There’s a whole lot that needs to drag behind a tank to keep it moving.”

Pressure From Germany

“If America will decide that they will bring battle tanks to Ukraine, that will make it easier for Germany,” German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck told Bloomberg from Davos on Tuesday.

Making Sense of it All

On January 19, The Hill provided this commentary: US decides against sending tanks to Ukraine in aid package

Sabrina Singh, the deputy Pentagon press secretary, told reporters Thursday it “doesn’t make sense” to give Ukraine the tanks at this stage.

“The maintenance and the high cost that it would take to maintain an Abrams, it just doesn’t make sense to provide that to the Ukrainians at this moment,” Singh said.

It made no sense yesterday, but it does today. 

Defense News

Defense News reports 

Pentagon officials had balked at sending the Abrams over concerns it would be too difficult for Ukraine to operate and maintain, and the u-turn comes as Berlin dropped its opposition to sending Leopard tanks.

U.S. officials told reporters it will take “months as opposed to weeks” before the U.S. can deliver the sophisticated yet powerful tanks. The Pentagon has complex issues to work out associated with supplying the Abrams, including how to deliver the jet fuel it runs on as well as other “equipment Ukraine will need to operate and maintain the Abrams,” one U.S. official said.

“We will have to put in place a very careful training program to be able to maintain and sustain these tanks, which do require a good deal of assistance,” the official said, adding that the training will include how to operate them and integrate them with maneuver operations.

President Biden Translated

“Germany didn’t force me to change my mind. We wanted to make sure we were all together,” Biden said. “That’s what we were going to do all along, and that’s what we’re doing right now.”

Translation: Biden told Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to recommended this aid. Then Biden bucked Pentagon advice to get Germany on board.

That’s what happened. You may agree or disagree with the decision, but that’s the way it happened.

Tanks Deployed When?

CNN Reports Germany has 320 leopard tanks. How many of them are operational is a mystery. 

The German army has 320 Leopard tanks in its possession but does not reveal how many would be battle ready, a spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defense previously told CNN.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly pleaded for countries to stop squabbling over whether to send the tanks.

“We have talked hundreds of times about the shortage of weapons. We cannot go only on motivation,” he said during a virtual appearance at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos last week.

In an apparent swipe at Germany’s stalling, Zelensky added: “There are moments when there is no need to hesitate. When people say – I’ll give you tanks if someone else does.”

Meanwhile, please note that the Pentagon has purchased more than 7,000 of the tanks in various configurations, yet we can’t spare 31 right away. 

Is the US or Germany really providing tanks? When?

This post originated at MishTalk.Com

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

120 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
This is going to end the way Korean War “ended.”
Incomplete and badly.
mrchinup
mrchinup
3 years ago
Liberal globalist morons, they are doing what the Davos crowd tells them to do. And dopes think Trump was bad? SMH…
Ultracrepidarian
Ultracrepidarian
3 years ago
from enough distance, it appears that the USA is emptying out its entire military arsenals by dumping them in a hole in the ground in Eastern Europe…….
dguillor
dguillor
3 years ago
Hardly. We are sending small portions of our stockpile of mostly outdated equipment.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Russia after Putin: When and how it might happen — and how dangerous it might get
The conversations about a post-Putin era have begun. Will it be a peaceful exit — or the “Game of Thrones” variety?
Stanislav Kucher – Special Contributor
January 23, 2023
In December 2022, the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council conducted a survey of 167 experts in Europe and the U.S. and asked what they thought might happen in the world in the next decade. For Russians, the conclusions were particularly disappointing.
Russia was the runaway winner — with 21 percent of the vote — in the category “most likely to become a failed state.” (Afghanistan, at 10 percent, was a distant second). Forty percent of respondents forecast a Russian revolution, civil war or other cataclysm. Interestingly — and perhaps as distressing as any of the findings — more of the experts (14 percent) believed Russia would unleash a nuclear war than that it would become a democratic country (10 percent).
The opening line of the entire report? “Prepare for Russia’s coming crack-up.”
….
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Keep on dreaming sonny ; insane debt inflated warmonging nations like the US, the dramatically empoverished UK and recently, the utterly deluded worthless EU vasals, will fall apart a thousand times BEFORE Russia does !
whirlaway
whirlaway
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Ja, ja, ja. The neocons and their buddies in Europe have such an amaz-ing track record of making extremely accurate predictions! LMAO.
KidHorn
KidHorn
3 years ago
Won’t matter. Russia has thousands of spies in Ukraine. They know where everything is at all times. Tanks are obsolete against a modern military. Like battleships. They’re a slow moving big target. Russia can take them out easily.
And the war is unwinnable. Even if Russia retreated behind their borders, we would waste trillions of dollars rebuilding.
thomsoni
thomsoni
3 years ago
I wonder how the US would react if Russia started lobbing conventional missiles at…say Washington….or New York or..take your pick. Wars are not always fought…somewhere else.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
The idea has been posited that sending tanks is a way for politicians to avoid taking the blame when Ukraine loses, as it now obviously will. They will be able to say, “Look, we did everything we could”.
BDR45
BDR45
3 years ago
Ukraine is toast, no matter how many tanks are sent there. It does insure that Russia, and their new allies, Iran, China and N. Korea are going to be thinking along the lines of nuclear war with the US. (Europe is already doomed because of its inept leaders, so just a few nuclear war heads should finish the UK, Germany, Finland, and Poland off pretty quick, and without any retaliation). Do any of us really want war? Consider the warmongers among our government/elites, and consider our complicity in being stupid enough to elect the ones we did.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  BDR45
Da comrade… Soviet Union shall rise again!
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
3 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
….dunno, but NAZI GERMANY definitely is on the right path again !
tractionengine
tractionengine
3 years ago
Mish is my first goto every morning because of the usually excellent content but I can’t figure out the point of this article.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  tractionengine
A contribution to the chronology of the beginning of World War III.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  tractionengine
The point is that our leaders are INSANE. They follow no logic, are unable to understand, let alone manage, risk and are putting the entire world in danger.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
If only they had your clarity of view! [lol]
MJS357
MJS357
3 years ago
Here’s what we all missed. Now, she is NOT a head of state so her words fell on deaf western media ears. However, RU is not deaf. Don’t think for a second the West is not in a phase 2 conflict with RU.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock bluntly stated in fresh remarks that Western allies are fighting a war against Russia. Baerbock said the quiet part out loud, and introduced the comments with: “And therefore I’ve said already in the last days – yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks.”

And that’s when she asserted: “But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other.”

Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  MJS357

this is a revelation? You need better conspiracies.

MJS357
MJS357
3 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
Difference between “revelation” what we all know to be true and a government official making a pubic statement that could and would escalate military action advancing wartime operation from proxy material support to major combat. You need better education in national defense phases of military operations. Read JP1-04 and JP3-0 and get back to me.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  MJS357
She stated the obvious. Not a revelation.
MJS357
MJS357
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Again, read my reply above.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  MJS357
Yes I did and did you read mine? She is saying what most people know already. Europe is in this together and will see it through together because the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a very cold shower for those who believed that Russia was a reliable partner. It pulled the curtain away and they saw what is really Russia today.
grazzt
grazzt
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Really?, Russia is not the reliable partner when both Ukraine and Germany (Angela Merkel) have publicly stated the 2015 Minsk II agreement (signed by Russia and Ukraine, mediated by France and Germany) was simply a ploy to buy Ukraine more time to build their Military and was never going to be enforced? Pretty much ended discussions moving forward about any negotiated settlement with Russia. Ukraine is either going to have to push Russia out of all existing occupied territory or Russia has to continue conquering Ukraine until the West runs out of Ukrainians to fight their war with Russia. The West’s only other option now would be to go all-in and use their own personnel to try and re-establish 2014 borders, essentially risking nuclear war.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  grazzt
Merkel is trying to rewrite history into where she is the smart one rather than the fool she turned out to be. Her legacy is already made and it isn’t good. More likely Putin will fight to the last Russian and then blow his brains out like you know who.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Come on man, are you really deluded or what ? A smart guy, which I think you are , should know what is going on ! Russia has been a thorn in US’ hegemonic flesh for ages , with a clown like Yeltsin, the US thought that the price was in the bag, ….and then came Putin….go figure, he even dared to interfere in your criminal, plans for Syria, which must ve been the drop in the proverbial bucket, so criminal Nazi regime Ukraine became your corrrupt warrior and battering ram against Russia ….Luckily, Putin, a super strategist , has known all along what you were up to ….and prepared ! Trust me, you won t beat Russia NEVER ! Unless you want to put the entire planet at risk, ….the West has obviously gone totally berserk , so I wouldn t be surprised if the ultimate nightmare came to materialise….
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
A super strategist wouldn’t have engaged an invasion of Ukraine with the sorry state of Russia’s military and industrial base and would have had a better idea of what Nato and Western Europe’s reaction to it would be. He also would have judged China as a fair-weather ally. A super strategist would have found means to woo Ukraine back and not invade it because it turned the country closest to Russia in language, customs, culture and common history into a moral enemy. To do that would have required a leader with some wisdom but Russia has a leader who is not up to the job of the long game. Now this leader is saying that if everybody doesn’t give him what he wants then he will blow up everybody his own country included. Do you that as a good leader or more likely someone who is a danger to everyone including those in Russia. Russia can survive very nicely without Ukraine but Putin can’t so is it better to get rid of the whole world or just get rid of Putin? That is the question you should ask yourself.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
I only know ONE good leader these days , I prefer the whole fn world to get blown up before gettin rid of Him …..AMEN !
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  FromBrussels2
Spoken like a true worshiper. You love him, not Russia.
MJS357
MJS357
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
You’re like talking to a bran muffin. You don’t understand military political strategy, escalations, nothing. It’s not about “what we know” it’s about WHAT is communicated. Read this, “Germany accuses Russia of twisting minister’s war comments for ‘propaganda” and maybe you will smarten up to raisin bran level.
MBA SOFA
MBA SOFA
3 years ago
Russia has a poor industrial capacity. Each tank, cannon, radar, destroyed by the ukranians makes a long term gain for EEUU. And China, too. Xi Jinping sure is happy seeing the russian army turning rubbish.
Dr. Odyssey
Dr. Odyssey
3 years ago
Reply to  MBA SOFA
“According to Moscow Defense Brief, it would appear that in 2008 the number of tanks produced by the company was greater than the number of main battle tanks produced by all the other countries of the world taken together.”
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Odyssey
That report dates from 2019 when we thought that Russia did have a decent military-industrial complex. The invasion and the consequent poor showing of the Russian military and equipment has caused a needed reassessment of Russia’s capabilities. Many of the assumptions underlying the report have been shown to be untrue.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
The “poor showing of the Russian military” exists only in the Ukrainian propaganda repeated more-or-less verbatim by Western media. The reality is that the Russians, with far fewer men, have been giving the Ukrainians a complete drubbing on the battlefield. The Ukrainians are totally outmatched and their casualties are staggering. They have lost the thousands of tanks they started the war with plus the hundreds donated by Eastern Bloc countries during 2022, which is why they are now begging for more. They have lost almost the entire army they started the war with and have done TEN mobilizations to try to replace losses. Ukraine is losing men, territory and key strategic positions. Western leaders know this, which is why they are now panicking and talking even more crazy than usual.
There was a chance of peace last March with the Istanbul negotiations, but Western leaders torpedoed it, preferring to keep escalating the conflict. None of these escalations have worked and Ukraine is still losing. Now we are up to modern tanks and talk of F-16s! Not much escalation left to go until we get to the nukes, and then it’s bye-bye to the species. Totally senseless.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
Are the Russians in Kyiv or Odessa? Have they not had to leave large parts of Ukraine?
And the peace deal Putin wanted was that Russia keeps all it occupied, Ukraine demilitarizes and Russia gets to do whatever it wants. That is not a peace deal. It is a surrender and the Ukrainians refused it. And since Putin thinks that by threatening to go nuclear will save him it won’t.
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
No, the Russians are not in Kyiv or Odessa. Nor are they in London or Madrid or Tokyo. Your point is?
Russia never wanted Ukraine – that’s just silly propaganda – if they had, they would have invaded with a couple of million men, not 100,000! This conflict was all about ending Ukrainian attacks on the people (mostly Russian) living in Dombas and preventing Ukraine hosting Western militaries with their weapons aimed at Russia.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
That Russia is going to lose and lose big. Read some of Putin’s writings, notable these he wrote a few months before he invaded Ukraine and then come back to talk. Jeez prumbly. FromBrussels at least was well versed in Putin’s philosophy so we could have a decent talk sometimes but you are just ignorant of what Putin said in writing what he wanted to do and his vision for Russia.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
The Dombas is part of Ukraine. They have the “right” to put down revolutions in their own territory. If Russian speaking people there were unhappy, then why didn’t they move to Russia? It wasn’t very far away.
Russia also doesn’t get to demand that independent countries act as some sort of de facto DMZ zone between Russia and the West.
Dr. Odyssey
Dr. Odyssey
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
I have no dog in this fight.
While I am still waiting for the the “Ruble to be rubble”, NATO donates to Ukraine the latest round of “game changers.”
We shall see.
I do agree with prumbly’s reply to you.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Odyssey
Nato is using the Russian tactic of sausage slicing; few weapons at first, then more, a few tanks at first and then much more.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
My goodness! Is there a “missile gap” again? CIA non-intelligence redux.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Yes some did think that the Russian military was a well-oiled machine rather than the decrepit rundown jalopy it really is.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Odyssey
You think that’s a reliable source?
Rbm
Rbm
3 years ago
Reply to  MBA SOFA
Yes weaker russia and us more i debt.
Dr. Odyssey
Dr. Odyssey
3 years ago
Ukraine is winning on twitter….. Real life is a completely different matter.
Western military experts explain that Western main battle tanks require large logistical support, years of training for a foreign army to adopt them, and have intense maintenance requirements.
“What an enlightening interview!!! Colonel is a treasure trove if military knowledge.”
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Challenger 2 vs Leopard 2: The new ‘lethal’ tanks set to completely change Ukraine war
The heavy armoured vehicles will allow Ukraine’s army to retake fortified positions in key cities along the front line.
Tue, Jan 24, 2023
Challenger and Leopard tanks have all the attributes to completely change the course of the Ukraine war, military experts have told Express.co.uk. Ukraine has consistently called on its Western allies to provide it with modern tanks to help its army expel Russian forces from its territory. Defence analysts have estimated that Kyiv will need at least 300 tanks, if it is to be successful in its campaign against Putin.
Oleh Zhdanov, a Ukrainian military expert told the Associated Press that Kyiv’s victory over the Kremlin would depend to a large extent on the West’s willingness to supply his country with “modern tanks and planes.”
With HIMARS slowly becoming less effective, as Russia’s army repositions its military supplies and forces further away from the front lines and out of range, tanks are becoming ever more crucial to helping Kyiv achieve further breakthroughs on the battlefield.
The heavy armoured vehicles will allow Ukraine’s army to retake fortified positions in key cities along the front line.
Britain has already pledged to supply Ukraine’s army with 14 of its Challenger 2 tanks.
And now it appears that Germany will green-light Poland’s request to send 14 of its Leopard tanks to Ukraine.
…
Avery
Avery
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
If the Brits send Prince Harry and The Duchess Of Sussex over there the Russians would die laughing.
Winn
Winn
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
But Western media said Ukraine is winning.
And Russia retreat in disarray?
? Fake news
Winn
Winn
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
I always thought Russia can’t win conventional war against NATO obviously.
And NATO is not interested in peace negotiation.
Russia has one option left.
Only one option.
NUCLEAR !
This is existential threat.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  Winn
Well, that may be addressed by the Russians themselves. There are a lot of people in Russia who are not Putin fans, especially those who have lost their children to this foolish war.
========
‘We’re collecting fighters’: Russia on brink of armed revolt as 1000s join anti-Putin army
Mr Ponomarev admits that regime change in his native land is “impossible” without armed resistance.
UPDATED: 17:33, Tue, Jan 24, 2023
Vladimir Putin has been warned that thousands of Russians are seeking to join the anti-Kremlin resistance as the threat of armed revolt in the country grows. Ilya Ponomarev is a former Russian MP and strident Putin critic, who is currently based in Kyiv. He joined Ukraine’s Territorial Defence Force after the outbreak of war last February and has denounced Putin’s invasion in no uncertain terms.
The former Vice President of Yukos is actively attempting to bring about regime change in his native country.
To that effect, he has helped to create the Congress of People’s Deputies – a transitional parliament consisting of 59 Russian politicians opposed to the Putin regime.
The Congress will hold its second session in Poland between February 20-23, as it develops plans for a Russian future without Putin.
…
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Winn
Russia has the option to stop invading its neighbor.
whirlaway
whirlaway
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
LOL. They are all sending these coffins-on-wheels, huh?! Hooray!
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
ISIS destroyed at least 10 Leopard 2 tanks in Syria back in 2016, using old Russian-made man-portable anti-tank missiles. The modern Russian military has a whole arsenal of weapons that can kill these tanks.
Quite amusing how the media is touting these tanks as some sort of magical weapon, just as they did Javelin missiles, NLAWs, HIMARS, etc. Such as the headline, “The Challenger 2 is the only tank never destroyed in combat”, which fails to mention that there aren’t many Challenger 2 tanks in existence (only a few hundred in the entire world) and they haven’t seen much actual combat. We will see how well this record holds up over the next few months.
These may be good tanks but they can certainly be destroyed by artillery, modern anti-tank missiles, Lancet anti-tank drones, or by other tanks.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
Of course there’s always a soldier or two with a satchel charge covered with heavy grease.
Tanks don’t last without adequate and close infantry support.
Roto1711
Roto1711
3 years ago
The globalists may soon get their wish for depopulation when and if Putin decides to use nukes, then it’s Hasta la vista, baby.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Why sending Ukraine tanks represents a fierce new step by the West
Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, CNN International Security Editor
Updated 10:11 PM EST, Wed January 25, 2023
After weeks of Poland and other NATO members openly pressuring Germany to permit the dispatch of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, finally it appears the United States and some of its European Union allies will send armor — a move that was unthinkable months ago — to the frontline against Russia.
It is a momentous decision, partly because these — unlike the air defense systems, or the anti-tank missiles — are not defensive weapons. Like the artillery and rocket systems that preceded them, they are intended to hit Russia’s troops hard in a ground offensive. But unlike those systems, they are unequivocally about Ukraine retaking territory. This is new, and fierce, and it portrays a NATO unafraid.
The combined US and European decision to send tanks to Ukraine is not the display of fractious democracies it might appear to be.
…
Mackkenzie
Mackkenzie
3 years ago
The Abrams are not a great fit for Ukraine due to the complex logistics and maintenance issues. However, Germany would not approve leopard delivery (which everyone agrees is the best fit for Ukraine) unless the US was sending tanks too. By sending a small number of Abrams the US is unlocking the delivery of leopards. The Abrams aren’t even going to be delivered for a year. The US is going to manufacture Ukraine’s tanks from scratch.
The Abrams in storage have top secret uranium armour and other goodies. The export version of the Abrams has none of these super secret features, but there are no export grade units in storage.
But the key point is not the delivery of the Abrams but the delivery of leopards, and there will be no leopards without Abrams.
Also, most of the leopards going to Ukraine are coming from European nations like Finland, Sweden and Spain. Germany doesn’t actually have many leopards of their own to ship. But without German permission no one else was going to ship leopards.
So the promise to ship Abrams was sufficient to convince Germany to approve third party shipments of leopards. As convoluted as this all is, it’s really all about enabling Spain, Sweden, Finland, Poland (and others) to ship leopards to Ukraine immediately.
JRM
JRM
3 years ago
Mish the real answer to your question, should be how many of those 7,000 Abrams tanks are operational???
And these west tanks did well in S Lebanon in Israel’s invasion..
Hezbollah was using Russian supplied anti-tank weapons to take out those Israeli tanks…
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
I made my first comment, quoting what the Pentagon actually said, because I knew there were going to numerous comments about how “Biden is defying the Pentagon’s suggestion that Ukraine is a lost cause”
Again, the Pentagon doesn’t think the tanks are good enough –
“But throughout its service, soldiers and war planners have been concerned about the tank’s huge fuel consumption and limited range, and the long logistics and maintenance train that follows the Abrams into combat. Those, among other factors, made the Pentagon reluctant to send Ukraine tanks.”
.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
They need solar cells for power! The military supposedly has solar cells that are up to 50% efficient and much smaller than what is sold commercially.
Mjs357
Mjs357
3 years ago
Except for domestic use (US all of West included) what would be the need for so much armor in the future? What nation(s) does the west intend to ever occupy again? Ground forces and equipment in genera; like this are as necessary as spy planes. They have a place – very limited. BTW it takes a year of training, simulator and real-world, to be proficient on German/US tanks. Maintenance, you can;t just use a hammer. Unless someone has already been training UKR forces to this point, the tanks are no more than paper weights. Finally, there’s nothing the Russians can do with them. Just like the stuff we left in Afghanistan. Giant paperweights….
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Mjs357
This has nothing to do with occupying anything.
This is about making piles of money manufacturing armaments and selling parts and maintenance.
Dr Funkenstein
Dr Funkenstein
3 years ago
What is the point of having a Pentagon if you aren’t going to listen to them? I guess Hunter Biden is Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte and George Patton are rolled into one corrupt package. Right up there with our support for South Vietnam and the Afghan government where the refugees are now causing millions of damages on the bases we have them in their gratitude.
phil
phil
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr Funkenstein
Can you make a case for supporting the South Vietnam government in 1963/64? Pretend you’re on a debating team, and you are assigned that, regardless of your baked-in beliefs. I’m just tossing it out there.
Avery
Avery
3 years ago
Reply to  phil
CIA heroin operation.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Avery
Wasn’t that Afghanistan?
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
One wonders how different NATOs response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would have been if Ukraine had already been a member of NATO.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
Had Ukraine been a NATO member, Russia would not have attacked.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Or if they had:
1) Everyone in the world right now would have a nuclear sunburn
2) The West would have backed down.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Nope. The West would have eradicated Russia. Yes, the west would have taken damage and you might not be posting here but likely 70% of the population would have come through. The US has nukes loaded and aimed in Europe countries such as Poland, able to reach Russia long before theirs (if they can fly at all or can manage to get launched) reach us. Out subs are all around Russia and it is said that we know exactly where all the Russian subs are because their stealth technology doesn’t work all that well.
whirlaway
whirlaway
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
That’s such bull-sheet. There is no such thing as either the West or Russia “eradicating” the other without going down themselves.
And your asinine “theory” that Russian nukes don’t work is just that – asinine. Now, it is clear that you are a nobody and your barkings don’t mean anything other than entertainment, but it is too bad that too many psychopaths in your mold are in positions of power.
TheCaptain
TheCaptain
3 years ago
I sense that Russia will end up with about half of these in its arsenal when the smoke clears. We lost in clownistan and we will lost in Russia as well because Joke biden is the most incompetent president ever to have stained the walls of the oval office with his liberal stench.
Stan888
Stan888
3 years ago
Are these the same tanks that led us to victory in Afghanistan?
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Stan888
no… taliban has those
ILHawk
ILHawk
3 years ago
Abrams are complicated and require massive support. Best in the world in a coordinated attack. Only one military can effectively do that…The US. German tanks not as hard to stand alone. Rhetoric is increasing on Ukraine taking the war to Moscow and St. Petersburg. 31 tanks not a lot, but when you look at what the US did to Iraq which WAS NOT poorly trained and equipped in Persian Gulf, if handled correctly will make a big difference. Note the 101 is deploying more to Romania.
This is just crazy. We are seeing WW3 unfold.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  ILHawk
What the US did in the 1st gulf war is not possible for Ukraine to replicate. They do not have anything close to the coordinated military that the US possessed (satellites, full air superiority, cruise missiles, full naval superiority including landing craft to do a sea invasion, better and LOTS of tanks, better equipped infantry, mechanized vehicles, reliable communications and so on) and even if a bunch of stuff gets shipped there they can’t get decades of experience using it in a couple of weeks time.
ILHawk
ILHawk
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
You missed my point. Of course the Ukrainians can’t do it. Only Americans can. What do you think this means? There will be more US support on the ground
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
3 years ago
Reply to  ILHawk
In the Persian Gulf War you had highly trained tank crews, experts in their specific task and then a year of additional training operating within a battle group. In Ukraine you have the Russians highly trained and the Ukrainians poorly trained. Also what about mechanics and all the support needed to keep these mechanical monsters running? I hear it’s really easy to blow up the turbine engine if you don’t know what you’re doing. It’s an empty gesture, but something had to be done, and this is something. Therefore it must be done. The clown show in DC continues.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
“In Ukraine you have the Russians highly trained and the Ukrainians poorly trained” ???
You mean poorly trained Ukrainians fought off and pushed back a larger force of highly trained Russians? Maybe the Russians aren’t very good at this at all.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Conservatives worship grift and stupidity now, so Russia is their god.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Switzerland is also now allowing Swiss ammunition and equipment to be used by Ukraine as well.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
One can’t but marvel at how this proxy war is weakening the West by destroying all its weapons by handing them over to Ukraine to be destroyed or sold on the black market. I feel sorry for all the poor Ukrainian kids that have been slaughtered in this evil neocon war. I hope Victoria Nulan, Robert Kagan, and all the other SOBs that started this war rot in heii!
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Not weakening the West at all. Getting rid of older ammunition allows it to be replaced with fresher, perhaps updated models. It also provides an income stream to defense manufacturers everywhere. The MIC and its workers are happy.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
Yep
prumbly
prumbly
3 years ago
Reply to  Jojo
If using up military stockpiles doesn’t weaken the West, how is it supposed to be weakening Russia?
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
Because we can easily manufacture more. Russia is suffering economically under sanctions. They can’t get parts from the west for their smart weapons. Most of what Russia “manufactures” requires supplies from the West.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  prumbly
FYI prumbly. Make sure your comrades see this. Russia can’t keep up!
———
Pentagon Will Increase Artillery Production Sixfold for Ukraine
The Army’s top acquisition official says production of the 155-millimeter shells badly needed by Kyiv will rise to 90,000 a month in two years.
By John Ismay and Eric Lipton
Jan. 24, 2023
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is racing to boost its production of artillery shells by 500 percent within two years, pushing conventional ammunition production to levels not seen since the Korean War as it invests billions of dollars to make up for shortfalls caused by the war in Ukraine and to build up stockpiles for future conflicts.
The effort, which will involve expanding factories and bringing in new producers, is part of “the most aggressive modernization effort in nearly 40 years” for the U.S. defense industrial base, according to an Army report.
The new investment in artillery production is in part a concession to reality: While the Pentagon has focused on fighting wars with small numbers of more expensive precision-guided weapons, Ukraine is largely relying on howitzers firing unguided shells.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, the U.S. Army’s production of 14,400 unguided shells a month had been sufficient for the American military’s way of war. But the need to supply Kyiv’s armed forces prompted Pentagon leaders to triple production goals in September, and then double them again in January so that they could eventually make 90,000 or more shells a month.
…
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Perhaps you should blame Putin for stating the war, one that will kill a lot of Russians.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Everyone went from no tanks to everyone rushing to give Ukraine tanks in a week’s time which means its been in discussion for a while now. Now that that dam has been broken the next will be to provide Western fighters because Nato’s doctrine requires airpower to work in conjunction with the tanks to get maximum effect. The writing has been on the wall ever since Russia invaded Ukraine.
Strange how Putin and the Russians have misread Western Europe, Nato, Japan and even China’s reactions to the invasion. It’s very strange that they really thought that Europe couldn’t cut off Russian oil and gas but they did in record time at that.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
When you lie constantly, you start to believe your own lies, and any lies that will support them. It’s the descent into kookery.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Zardoz
There must be a Rasputin in there somewhere. That could explain it.
Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
They probably are all his descendants.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
It’s possible it doesn’t matter because to them because the issue in Ukraine really IS as important as life and death. If they are fanatical about the war in Ukraine (and no one can confirm that one way or another) it won’t matter if they misread the west and they’ll go down dying for the cause.
The problem is that dying for the cause will mean nuclear / biological / chemical weapons get used eventually. Fanatics aren’t rational. This is why everyone fears nuclear technology in places like Iran.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
From a Western European point of view Russia invading Ukraine and with Putin saying he wants Russia to expand back to the old Soviet Union empire has made Russia’s plans an existential threat to them which accounts for their rapid and forceful reaction. No one except a few deranged wants to live under the Russian system. Putin may use nuclear to get out of his quandary because he can’t win this one using conventional means but others in Russia might not have the same idea.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
If true, that provides the perfect excuse to use nuclear weapons.
Let Putin drop a couple bombs and force a Ukrainian surrender (which it would because the West would never use their own which would unleash nuclear annihilation on everyone). After the surrender, remove Putin from power and put the whole use of nukes on him. Get back in good graces with the West while achieving the goals in Ukraine.
blacklisted
blacklisted
3 years ago
It doesn’t sound like you realize WWIII has already started. Regardless, anyone that doubts it will realize it by May.
Broke western Govt’s need the distraction for debt defaults, and the WEF needs it to implement their Great Reset BS, that cannot be accomplished without Russia and China on board (yes, they think they can militarily destroy Russia and then move on to China). Ukraine is being sacrificed to weaken Russia. Poland will likely be the next to be sacrificed before NATO moves in after the appropriate false flag.
BTW, I thought Ukraine was winning. If so, why do they need all of the tanks? ALL of the reporting is a lie, including the non-reporting of the utter corruptness of Ukraine, and the history of the Khazarian mafia and Ukrainian Nazi’s, which the CIA has been using, just like they did the Mujahedeen, Al-Qaeda, and other so-called “freedom fighters”. The war mongers believe they can get patriotic American’s fired up again, just like they did after 9/11, to go fight the “evil Russians”. They will not get the volunteers this time, which is why the draft will be re-instated, just like it is in eastern European countries.
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
3 years ago
Reply to  blacklisted
Ukraine is winning, and Russia ran out of weapons way back in April. 😂
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
3 years ago
The propaganda industrial complex is already in WW3 mode.
Soon, the sinking of the Lusitania will be blamed on Russia, and it will be believed by a good portion of the population.
Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago
Reply to  blacklisted
“BTW, I thought Ukraine was winning. If so, why do they need all of the tanks?”
So they can win faster! Everyone is realizing that this engagement needs to be wrapped up by next winter.
Carl_R
Carl_R
3 years ago
The Abrams are good tanks, but only if you have a huge logistics system in place. They need the full system (parts, fuel, maintenance, trucks, etc) regardless of whether the number of tanks Ukraine has is 31 or 7000. The Pentagon doesn’t think it’s worth the trouble, and they are probably right. It may take 500 people working behind the scenes to keep those 31 tanks running.
So, why, when the US has a stock of 7000 of these, is Ukraine going to get 31 ones to be constructed for them? My guess is that the Abrams has been updated with some top secret features, and this batch of 31 will be constructed without that update.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
Some things will have to be pulled out first.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Doug78
Absolutely correct. No way the US is going to risk the latest technology falling into Russian hands when these tanks are inevitably destroyed.
Dr. Odyssey
Dr. Odyssey
3 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
So, why, when the US has a stock of 7000 of these, is Ukraine going to get 31 ones to be constructed for them?
The lag time for construction, training of tank crews, and delivery gives Russia time to finish the job of cleaning up Ukraine.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Dr. Odyssey
They are getting already built ones.
Billy
Billy
3 years ago
“That headline, appears to be scrubbed.”
“Whoeird”-John Ross
Avery
Avery
3 years ago
Hi Mish.
How would you compare Annalena Baerbock to Otto von Bismarck? The former has ‘quite a resume!’ as the corporate media mighty Wurlitzer likes to say. Have all of the offending statues of the latter been torn down in Germany?
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
3 years ago
Reply to  Avery
You saw that too.
“And therefore I’ve said already in the last days – yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks.”

“But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia and not against each other.”

I checked her biography and her kids are too young to be in the military. From her point of view now is the time to start the war.
jkearnscda
jkearnscda
3 years ago
So stupid. They can be taken out by inexpensive drones.
Carl_R
Carl_R
3 years ago
Reply to  jkearnscda
Newer tanks have active armor, and are much more difficult to destroy. The tanks you generally see taken out with inexpensive drones are older T-60 or T-72 tanks, which both Ukraine and Russia have been using. You rarely see T-90 or T-14 Armata tanks taken out.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
Yes but will we be sending the latest versions with active armor or older configurations that came out in the 80s’.
Whatever we send will likely end up in Russian hands at some point when a tank is destroyed so the question is do we want to give away the latest technology to Russia.
JRM
JRM
3 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
Well Hezbollah took out Israels high tech tanks when Israel moved into Southern Lebanon in their last venture!!!
Using Russian anti-tank weapons!!!
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Carl_R
T-14 Armata tanks have been totally absent in Ukraine probably because Russia doesn’t have many at all to use.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
3 years ago
Reply to  jkearnscda
Will be taken out by mud.
The M1 is a 55-ton tank, in the same ballpark as the Wehrmacht’s Tiger tank.
It needs perfect soil conditions.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
And carefully selected bridges to cross any rivers.
Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Astute observation.
Cocoa
Cocoa
3 years ago
Russian tanks are getting clobbered with drones. Whats the point of giving Ukraine tanks? They are slow, stupid and last generation’s weapon. Plus, to boot, the M1 is a piece of junk and we knew that in the 80s. Its about as cruddy as the new F-35
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
The headline might suggest the Pentagon advises against helping Ukraine with Abrams tanks, and then –
“But throughout its service, soldiers and war planners have been concerned about the tank’s huge fuel consumption and limited range, and the long logistics and maintenance train that follows the Abrams into combat. Those, among other factors, made the Pentagon reluctant to send Ukraine tanks.”
The Pentagon doesn’t think these tanks are good enough for Ukraine.
LM2022
LM2022
3 years ago
Poland wanted to immediately transfer German-made Leopard tanks to Ukraine but couldn’t do it without German approval. Germany didn’t want to go out on a limb, so US is offering a fig leaf. The only tanks Ukraine will be getting are from Poland or other Eastern European countries.
LawrenceBird
LawrenceBird
3 years ago
The delay is likely intentional given the large number of troops that need to be trained to support the M1, not just the tank guys. The Leopards will get in use very quickly if not in fact then by comparison.

Decorate Your Walls with Mish Fine Art Images

Click each image to view details or purchase in the store.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.