I wanted to take a second to discuss the US political reasons behind the German tank intransigence. If folks want to argue in detail about the domestic politics, kick it over to Cloakroom, but I just wanted to give 100k consequence of the November elections as a DC person.
Following GOP takeover in the House, it has become conventional wisdom that we will be operating under a series of short term funding resolutions, flat funded appropriations, and possibly cuts over the next two years. It’s highly unlikely that there will be another major Ukraine funding bill that will make enough people happy to survive the politics of divided government. I’m not CR-ing this: it’s just politics 101. It’s equivalent of saying Nick Cage is weird. There are basically 20 or so pro Russia House Members that can block anything, short of some sort of unique procedural trick that virtually never happens.
The last Congress realized this, and during December did another Ukraine Bill, plus gave the President lend-lease authority and lots of other legal wiggle room in the Defense Authorization. Basically, that’s gotta get Ukraine through the next election.
Because the Abrams costs nearly $10 million a pop, retail, even giving the Ukrainians a few dozen, with all the necessary support, training, etc. will quickly eat up a massive chunk of the money the Administration has to stretch out over the next two years. That’s why we aren’t stepping in and saying “Let’s just roll the Abrams! Fuck them Krauts!” The Germans know this, and I’m sure have conditioned any Abrams we send on being fully supported, as opposed to just sending a few first gen Abrams to be parked on the outskirts of Kyiv for show.
Putting aside all the other dysfunction in the German Government, Olaf has figured out a weak point in US domestic politics and is exploiting it for maximum leverage.