Click to see the full-size image
Written by Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant
In yet another irresponsible step in the conflict, the US is about to send its first batch of Abrams tanks to Ukraine. The announcement shows how NATO remains willing to escalate its war against Russia and take it to the ultimate consequences. However, the real effects of the measure on the battlefield will be minimal, since there is no expectation of reversal in the military scenario.
The move was announced on August 1 by Doug Bush, the US Army Acquisition Chief, during an interview with CNN journalists. He stated that the first batch of Abrams tanks is now ready for delivery to Kiev. First, the vehicles will arrive in Europe and from there they will be sent to Ukraine, as well as all the necessary equipment for their use.
“They are done (…) Now they have to get to Europe, and then to Ukraine, along with all of the things that go with them. Ammunition, spare parts, fuel equipment, repair facilities. So you know, it’s not just the tanks, it’s the full package that goes with it. That’s still on track”, he said.
Currently, Ukrainian troops are being trained by NATO’s instructors to learn how to handle Abrams tanks. The ten-week training program will conclude at the end of August, with vehicles expected to arrive in September.
In fact, it is no surprise that these weapons are being sent, as promises in this regard have been made by the US government since January. However, apparently Ukrainian expectations are not being fully met. It was expected that 31 Abrams tanks would be sent to Kiev, but according to Politico the most likely is that only between six and eight vehicles will arrive in the country.
Not only the quantity, but also the quality of the tanks was diminished. The Pentagon had previously said it planned to help Ukraine with Abrams M1A2 tanks, however it changed its strategy in March, opting for the M1A1, which is an older model. Furthermore, it was recently reported by the Western media that the US is decreasing the M1A1’s capabilities by eliminating any technology deemed “sensitive” before delivering them to Kiev.
It was said by sources familiar with the topic that the tanks might “lose some of their most sophisticated electronics before seeing combat in Ukraine”. Among the equipment removed are artillery technology resources and depleted uranium armor. In practice, this shows that, although it is helping Ukraine, the US does not “trust” Kiev’s troops and tries to prevent them from “stealing” its military technology.
This reduction in the quality of the tanks makes it even more difficult for them to bring about any real change in the conflict. More likely, the arrival of the Abrams will have the same null effect on the battlefield as the US Bradleys and Germany’s Leopards.
For the Russians, the existence of a large number of enemy armored vehicles has little relevance, since Moscow’s defense lines are sufficiently fortified to neutralize Ukrainian advances with any type of tank. So, most likely the Abrams will also be easy targets for Russian artillery, air force and minefields.
Obviously, for the western media what actually matters is to spread the narrative that every new NATO weapon sent to Ukraine will be a “game changer”. Now, Western journalists are optimistic that the Abrams will help Kiev in the current “counteroffensive” by “breaking entrenched defenses”.
“The arrival of the tanks in the coming weeks will add a new, lethal dimension to Ukraine’s inventory as its forces struggle to break through entrenched Russian defenses along a front line that stretches for hundreds of miles”, Politico says.
However, from a realistic point of view, this is nothing more than unsubstantiated propaganda. The Ukrainian counteroffensive cannot go from absolute failure to sudden victory with the mere arrival of a new tank, simply because tanks do not win wars alone. The technical apparatus of a country at war is important, but it is just one of the factors involved in a military campaign. There are also many other points to be considered, such as strategic planning, tactical-operational strength, troops’ morale and capacity to replace losses. In all these sectors Ukraine has serious weaknesses, despite receiving Western weapons systematically. And it is for this reason that the “counteroffensive” tends to fail regardless of any foreign help.
The only thing new weapons can do to conflict is escalate and prolong it. The more Western equipment arrives in Ukraine, the longer the fighting will last, and the more incisive Russian military measures will have to be in order to neutralize the enemy side. In other words, in addition to not being able to reverse the military scenario of the conflict in favor of its proxy, NATO is simply unnecessarily increasing the suffering of the Ukrainian people.
You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.
abrams – ultimate desperate wunderwaffe # 29843. the last hope for the nazis.. until the next wunderwaffe.
and after that they will give them
question :
why does this article mention about suffering of ukrainian people ??? if the people of ukraine cared about their country they wouldn’t have supported occidentalist coup plotters at some point russia must come to reality and abandon the failed ideology of pan-slavism
i from ukraine and we like die for zelensky. he say, we do. we need more american wepons so we can die more. slava ukraini
you are not dying for zelensky or for ukraine, but for the global corporations and international banksters in their proxy war against russia. despite its shortcomings, in this fight, russia is on the side of the angels.
the saudi’s have the m1a2 variant, so better electronic packages. and iraq has the m1a1 variant. what both versions have in common is that they also don’t have what the ukrainians ain’t getting either, the highly advanced armor. which will make the ukrainian tanks just as vulnerable as the saudi abrams were in yemen and the iraqi abrams against isis. because the americans know that even now the russians are studying captured damaged leopard 2’s and bradley ifv’s.
tie staré šroty nič nezmenia. v iraku mali obrovské straty. myslím, že to bolo cca 30 ks. veď potrebujú takú údržbu, že to nie je ani možné. veľká spotreba paliva. potrebuje leteckí parafín, potrebuje inžinierov na údržbu.
“those old scraps will not change anything. they had huge losses in iraq. i think it was about 30 pcs. they need such maintenance that this is not possible. large fuel consumption. it needs air paraffin, needs engineers for maintenance.”
4-8 pcs. is a joke, even if all 31 arrive, while ukros loosing 2 tanks an 5 afvs and ifvs a day, so thats maybe enough for 2 weeks.
could you explain how the us is “irresponsible” for sending weapons to ukraine if the government ( in spite of the political conditions within the country ) which most of the people voted for made requests for them