One does not simply drive tanks into Rostov!
Not really. His main transgression is the insistence that Polish or Finnish or Spanish tanks can’t be sent to the “Ukrainian plains”. Which is a completely different category of action, isn’t it? It’s one thing to decide German policy based on particularly German historical sensitivities, it’s quite another to claim the right to decide other countries policies.
And speaking of sensitivities, it’s interesting that he doesn’t seem all that concerned about the symbolism of a German Chancellor telling Poland what it can and can’t do.
vyshka
22775
I’m curious what precautions NATO has taken in regards to Orban/Hungary over the past few years, and especially in the past year.
I don’t know anything about this guy but he seems to have only started blogging in late August:
He noted how Russia’s capture of Izyum and the west bank of the Dnieper in Kherson at the beginning of the war were strategically critical, and “Ukraine simply has no hope of success waging a successful, full scale offensive.”
What is the opposite of prescient?
I don’t know anything about yarn made from alpacas but this blog is about that:
That’s an interesting take. From my german perspective, Angela Merkel was a shrewd politician and the master of making “Do Nothing” look like leadership. We are in this mess, at least partially, because of her and her politics back when all this started in Crimea. Of doing nothing and waiting and seeing. She had some principled stances she acted on, and I admire her for (the refugee crisis), some calls that were only ever made to weaken the opposing political parties (Atom Energy Exit to try and neutralize the Greens). But she was not a beacon of decisive leadership. Germany stalled under her leadership as nothing got done, nothing moved forward, and everything was slowed down. Others who are more fans of hers may well disagree. Still, all I remember from her is acting when it was prudent for her political agenda, stalling everything else that could threaten her dominance of the german political landscape, and fighting to preserve the status quo at all costs to the detriment of progress. Except for the refugee crisis, as noted. I think she would have been even worse than our current coalition under the weak Scholz. At least we got the Greens pushing and trying their hardest. If we had Baerbock as Chancellor, this would all be done already. But we have Scholz. Sigh. Nothing to be done, but I hope the pressure internally rises.
But I assume it won’t be quick, as recent polls show a roughly 50/50 split in Germany when it comes to providing tanks to Ukraine, with the largest support by the older people, bigger opposition from the young and the most opposition from our Far Right and Far Left. If there were bigger support, it would move faster, but there is no majority in Germany for providing tanks. Providing support, yes, but not tanks, as they are seen as offensive weapons.
Don’t know much about history, don’t know much biology, but this video is about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4GLAKEjU4w
schurem
22781
But I do know one und one is two, and if you gave me a leopard too, what a wonderful world that would be.
jsnell
22782
Oh, please. Requiring permission for re-exports of arms is totally standard, not some kind of strong-arming like you’re implying here. When early in the war Germany wasn’t able to send Marders due to not getting Swiss permission for re-exporting the ammo, did you phrase it as “Switzerland claiming the right to decide German policies”?
Germany is not stopping countries from giving tanks sourced from elsewhere to Ukraine. But they are not granting re-export permission for German tanks. From an optics perspective, that’s what they are. It doesn’t matter who has previously owned those tanks.
CraigM
22783
I’m pretty sure people here were doing precisely that.
Dejin
22784
I was certainly throughly disgusted with Switzerland. Here’s hoping those sorts of decisions — refusing to support the defense of a free people against an invading totalitarian government ends the Swiss defence industry.
jsnell
22785
No, I’m quite certain they weren’t, and you will not be able to find a single counterexample.
There were, of course, complaints here. But they were about Swiss banks being addicted to Russian oligarch money, or whatever, but they were not saying that the Swiss were somehow coercing the Germans. Because that would be absurd.
But the mechanisms are just the same here. It is not, like Mark is claiming, that Germany is “claiming the right to decide other countries policies” and trying to ascribe it some kind of a sinister historical echoes. There is no loss of sovereignty here. It is standard contractual terms.
Yes. Although in the Swiss case, at least there was a certain consistency to it.
Of course it is totally standard to have those kinds of clauses in major arms deals, and one understands that you don’t necessarily want your customers to resell your wares to some authoritarian regime that’s going to use them in some further humanitarian disaster. But, the German government always has a choice about when to exercise its contractual rights. Blocking its allies’ preferred policy is an active choice that Scholz’s government made. By definition, that’s an implicit claim that their concerns are more important than their allies.
He and they always had the choice of sticking to the line that Poland’s tanks belonged to Poland, and if they wanted to donate them to a democracy fighting a war of survival then that was Poland’s right, and none of the German government’s business. They didn’t have to intervene in their allies’ policy decisions. They chose to.
Retro
22787
Blocking its allies’ preferred policy is an active choice that Scholz’s government made. By definition, that’s an implicit claim that their concerns are more important than their allies.
The interesting niggle here is that as of yet no official request for re-export seems to have been issued… as to why that would be? Maybe they don’t want to risk ‘no’ as an answer (but then this could be used to further pressure Germany…) or possibly because they actually need Germany to contribute its own Leopards as well (because really, a dozen Leos out of polish/finnish stocks are not going to achieve much, Ukraine requests hundreds) - which most certainly is something Germany alone has to decide
Law in general doesn’t usually recognize moral arguments, only statutory criteria. So if you establish the precedent that arms re-transfer restrictions can be easily waived or, more significantly, that such clauses can be ignored, it won’t matter that in this case it is entirely justified from a moral position held by a large group of nations. It would establish the same precedent for, say, Hungary to transfer gear from other NATO nations to Russia, or for I don’t know Egypt to transfer things to Yemen.
Not that I think any of this is crucial, or should be a deciding factor. I do think that one factor influencing Germany, as a major arms manufacturer, is the impact of allowing re-transfers on what might happen down the road. I just think the current need in Ukraine outweighs such considerations (which in reality are always going to be unique to each case).
Grifman
22789
Morocco has sent at least 20 tanks to Ukraine:
And that is one reason Ukraine has done as well as it has so far I think.
