NATO is still infighting over sending weapons to Ukraine. It began with stinger missiles. This, even though Ukraine needed them to take out Russian tanks.
That has been the case with practically every weapon Ukraine has pleaded for. Infighting over sending fighter jets has been most enduring in this respect.
Now NATO is infighting over sending tanks. Never mind that Ukraine is pleading for tanks to execute its counteroffensive.
NATO infighting over sending tanks to Ukraine
The only reason for this infighting has been NATO’s irrational fear of Russia. Each member fears incurring Russia’s wrath if they send lethal weapons.
Of course, nothing happens every time they call Russia’s bluff. But their fear makes a mockery of their three-Musketeer-style Article 5 pledge. After all, that Article says an attack on one is an attack on all.
Not to mention that Russia’s attack on lowly Ukraine has been a spectacular failure. So it wouldn’t dare attack “one inch” of any NATO country. This, especially given Biden’s declaration that such an attack would incur NATO’s wrath…
Yet Putin keeps bluffing. And NATO keeps infighting – until they find their nerve. (They’re still trying to find it to send those fighter jets. But they will, eventually.)
But it’s nearly a year later. And NATO is still infighting over sending weapons to Ukraine.
CNN reported Friday that German officials indicated they wouldn’t send their Leopard tanks to Ukraine or allow any other country [like Poland, Finland, or Spain] with the German-made tanks in their inventory to do so unless the US also agreed to send its M1 Abrams tanks to Kyiv.
(CNN, January 21, 2023)
NATO needs more decisive US leadership
This ongoing spectacle would be laughable if the ongoing consequences for Ukraine were not so tragic. And don’t blame Germany. It is constitutionally mandated to cower like this.
But the US is not. Yet it is dithering and cowering most of all NATO members. That has been the most stupefying feature of the war.
After all, President Biden vowed the US intended to help Ukraine defeat Russia. That, so Russia would never even think of invading another country again.
So you’d think the US would not hesitate to send any weapon to help Ukraine. Not least because everyone knows that if the US leads, NATO members will follow.
Yet Biden has shown more irrational fear of Putin than any other NATO leader. This, despite instructive occasions when he called Putin’s bluff.
For example, just weeks ago, Biden settled infighting over sending air-defense systems. He agreed to send the much-vaunted US Patriot missile system..
And reports are that he will soon settle infighting over sending long-range missiles. That, by sending the missiles he spent the past 11 months refusing to send. He said he feared doing so would escalate this war too much. Now what?
NATO’s drip-drip strategy for sending weapons
Biden needs to show a little of President Zelensky’s leadership. Besides, you’d think he would be keen to avoid Zelensky shaming him again. Remember, that’s what happened the day Putin invaded. Biden offered to help him flee Ukraine, only to have Zelensky exclaim:
The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.
(The Associated Press, February 25, 2022)
Alas, Zelensky has been exclaiming in a similar fashion every week since then.
It’s a no-brainer. Biden should send US tanks – no matter how unsuitable. Do whatever it takes to get Germany and other members to send their more suitable tanks. Period!
NATO always ends up doing the right thing. Except their infighting has allowed Russia to kill far too many innocent Ukrainians. The die is cast. Its drip-drip strategy for sending weapons to Ukraine will be the biggest blunder of this war. And, given Russia’s epic blunders, that’s saying a lot.
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.