Written by Rajan Kumar
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has become more dangerous with NATO’s commitment to send tanks and missiles to Ukraine. In a clear sign of escalation, NATO decided to provide more weapons to Ukraine ranging from Patriot missiles to Leopard 2 battle tanks. In the first phase of the war, NATO transported Soviet armoured vehicles, ammunition and defensive weapons to Ukraine. In the next stage, it provided long-range howitzers and HIMARS. And now, it has agreed to deliver air defence systems, tanks and armoured vehicles.
While these weapons are not enough to defeat Russia, they will likely replenish stocks and rebuild Ukrainian forces for a fresh assault. Ukraine has almost depleted its weapons and is entirely dependent on western supplies. NATO members were reluctant to supply critical weapons to Ukraine fearing escalation, but the growing Russian assault nudged them to reconsider and take greater risks. The Ukrainian army is under intense pressure. It desperately needs advanced weapons to counter the Russian offensive. Its retreat from Soledar near Bakhmut contributed to the West’s decision to supply these critical weapons.
The Biden administration has decided to send 31 Abrams tanks, while Germany has offered 14 Leopard battle tanks to Ukraine. There is also a discussion on providing more fighter aircraft to Ukraine. The Pentagon was reluctant to send the Abrams tanks, but to persuade Germany, it conceded to such a demand. The Germans had put a condition that they would send the Leopard 2 only if the US sent its Abrams tanks.
Germany’s reluctance was partly due to its post-World War II pacifist foreign policy. It avoids sending military and weapons to other countries. Chancellor Olaf Scholz was concerned that providing advanced weaponry to Ukraine would give Moscow the impression that Berlin was an active party in the conflict. He feared being drawn into a conflict, which is the worst in Europe since World War II. But the growing domestic pressure and the fear of missing out in Europe led him to change his decision.
NATO agreed to upgrade its level of support for several reasons. First, Russia’s offensive is likely to increase in the spring. Second, the Russian army has fortified itself in the Donbas region, and it is difficult for the Ukrainian military to penetrate further without long-range missiles and protective tanks. Third, the West is preparing for a long-term war, as it will take several months before new weapons reach the battlefield. Finally, internal NATO politics contributed to such a decision. Germany came under severe criticism for not providing critical support to Ukraine. As a leader of Europe, it cannot be seen missing out when other states were coming forward.
Introduced during the Cold War period in 1979, the Leopard 2 tank became one of the main battle tanks of NATO. More than a dozen countries possess this tank, and there are nearly 2,000 Leopard tanks in Europe. Germany has agreed to send its relatively new 2A6 model, while other European states will provide its older versions. Western military experts consider these tanks superior to the Russian T-72 and the T-90 tanks. The Leopard 2 tanks can move faster than the American Abrams tanks and run on easily-available diesel.
These tanks will create parity with the Russian tanks and artillery. Russia’s deputy envoy to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Maksim Buyakevich, warned that NATO had crossed the red line and would lead to a full-blown conflict in Europe. The chances of direct conflict between NATO and Russia are high.
Ukraine convinced the West that the tanks and long-range missiles would be game changers. But independent security experts dismiss the idea as premature and wishful thinking. Ukraine still does not possess the wherewithal and firepower to push Russian forces out of its occupied territory. General Mark Milley, the US Chair of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, also argued a few days earlier on similar lines.
These weapons will boost the morale of Ukraine’s army and may dissuade Russian forces from advancing further. But they are insufficient to reverse Russia’s gains in the last eleven months. The fresh supply of weapons will bring NATO and Russia one step closer to direct confrontation. Russia may consider targeting the NATO supply line to Ukraine, which it has avoided until now.
If Ukraine goes too far, Russia will retaliate with a vengeance and more firepower. Moscow views the conflict as an existential crisis. It portrays the war in civilisational terms in which Russia is fighting for its survival, historical glory and future. From its perspective, the war became inevitable to stop the West from dismembering and destroying Russia. The Kremlin’s narrative, widely popular in Russia, often juxtaposes this crisis with the Soviet Union’s war with the Nazis in the Second World War. Russia might incur heavy losses in such a war, as the Soviet Union did, but it would not give up and surrender. Moreover, President Vladimir Putin’s regime will come under the shadow if Russian forces retreat further from their present positions in Ukraine.
To avert that situation, Moscow would not hesitate to commit more resources, technology and people. Hence, what we are going to witness is a further escalation in the coming months. There are no signs of negotiations as yet.
The writer teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University Delhi and is the author of the book Re-emerging Russia: Structures, Institutions and Processes
