[Skybird]

FOCUS:
--------------------------
What the dispute over American Abrams tanks is really about

If the USA delivers the Abrams tank, Germany would release the Leopards for Ukraine. The German government denies that this junket exists. But even if it did: For Ukraine, the American "diva" would only be the second-best choice.

It is not easy to penetrate the thicket of the German-American dispute over tank deliveries to Ukraine. Among other things, this is due to the fact that in recent months there has seldom been any clear talk in public.

For months, the Americans have been trying to encourage Germany to deliver the Leopard 2 tank to Ukraine - but for a long time they have only made this public in a very convoluted manner. Because they did not want to put Berlin under public pressure or criticise it as they did in the era of Donald Trump.

The German government, on the other hand, had long declared that it did not want to go it alone when it came to supplying Western battle tanks. Now, however, several European states have announced their willingness to supply Leopard 2 tanks from their own stocks, and the British also intend to pass on their Challenger tanks to Ukraine. But Berlin continues not to move.

According to numerous media reports in Germany as well as in the USA, Berlin is said to have made a junket and to deliver the Leopard 2 only if the USA for its part delivers Abrams tanks. Even statements by US officials suggest that this condition by Germany may have existed.

Publicly, however, Berlin denies this. The new Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, for example, stated these days that he was "not aware" of such a junket. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, on the other hand, reports that there was a heated argument between the American Defence Minister Lloyd Austin and the head of the Chancellor's Office Wolfgang Schmidt.

Afterwards, Joe Biden's national security advisor Jake Sullivan is said to have intervened with Chancellor Scholz's foreign policy advisor Jens Plötner in no uncertain terms. Among other things, Washington is said to be annoyed by the fact that new demands are always being made of Europe, even though the USA is by far the by far the largest part of Western military aid to Ukraine.

German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said on Monday that he could not confirm media reports about the US government being annoyed because of too hesitant arms deliveries from Germany - neither in content nor in the alleged tone. Talks with the USA were ongoing and constructive. Positions were clearly exchanged. Chancellor Olaf Scholz continues to advocate very close coordination with the USA.
The USA has been refusing to supply Abrams tanks for months because it considers them a worse choice than the Leopard in view of Ukraine's needs. The latter is "somewhat easier to maintain, it can advance over large land areas before it needs to be refuelled," for example, deputy Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said of the German tank. "The maintenance and the high cost of keeping the Abrams running - it just doesn't make sense to provide it to the Ukrainians right now."

Secretary of Defence Colin Kahl had made similar comments. "The Abrams tank is a very complicated piece of equipment. It is expensive. It's heavy in terms of training. And it has an aircraft engine." Nevertheless, a debate is now also beginning in the US about whether to supply the Ukrainians with at least a small number of Abrams - if only as a symbol to get Germany to relent.

Just one would be enough to get Germany, for example, to also send battle tanks, says Republican Michael McCaul, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to the broadcaster "ABC". In his view, the mere announcement of such a delivery would be enough. Democratic Senator Chris Coons agreed with him. Should it be necessary to send some Abrams to procure the Leopards from Germany, Poland or other allies, he would support it.

However, a US official told Slate magazine that with a unit price of nine million dollars, the Abrams would be a rather expensive symbol. And, "We wouldn't give the Ukrainians weapons they can't use."

In fact, it is undisputed among experts that the Leopard would be the better choice. This is because the Abram's turbine engine consumes much more fuel than the more economical Leopard. Moreover, maintenance and servicing of the Abrams is a costly and complicated affair that requires great logistical effort.

The US military's Abrams would also probably have to be refitted for Ukraine first. "People don't think about the fact that all the American M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks stored or in service with the US Army are filled with a tonne of depleted uranium," writes Italian military expert Thomas Theiner.

It is a mesh inserted in the armour between steel and ceramic plates and its composition is highly secret. Therefore, it would first have to be removed and replaced by tungsten for export to other nations, and that would take weeks.

As is so often the case with modern military equipment, the Abrams, while considered highly effective and powerful, is often described as a diva when it comes to training and maintenance. "The M1 series of the Abrams is the best in the world," says Mark Hertling, for example, former commander-in-chief of the US Army in Europe, who himself led tank companies. "But training for tank crews and maintenance crews is critical and cannot be handled superficially. Because if you do that on an M1, you break a lot of things." The propulsion unit can also break easily, he said, and is very expensive to replace.

The Americans also do not have extensive spare parts stocks for the Abrams in Europe because the US troops' tanks stationed there are constantly being rotated back to the US. Given the patchwork of weapons systems Ukraine has received from the West, the Ukrainian military is already struggling to keep them running, the ex-general says.

"Ukrainian army commanders I talk to want tanks, but they admit they are already struggling with logistics and getting supplies and spare parts to the right place. So reducing that burden has to be a key consideration," says Hertling. "And in my professional opinion, the Abrams would mean a higher load for a force that is in a tough fight because of training needs and supplies. The Leopard 2s would be a lighter load."
-------------------------------