The long-running story with the supply of Western-made tanks to Ukraine is still unfolding mainly in the media space.

Due to the lack of real "iron" - and even more so because of the unwillingness of politicians to answer for their words.

Germany's partners suddenly fell silent after official Berlin agreed to supply Kyiv with Leopard 2 tanks, complained Kevin Kuhnert, Secretary General of the Social Democratic Party of Germany.

Kuhnert is the party boss of Chancellor Olaf Scholz, so you should listen to his words.

“In recent weeks, it sometimes seemed that the whole world wants to send (tanks. -


), but not the Federal Republic of Germany.

Now we see that Germany has made concrete commitments and that a tank company will indeed be delivered.

And suddenly it became very quiet around us, ”the media quoted the German Social Democrat as saying.

The resentment of the German authorities is understandable.

After all, they were, in fact, publicly bred for the supply of Leopard, which they were not going to do (before the start of the conflict in Ukraine, Berlin generally wanted to limit itself to helmets).

European NATO allies were also reluctant to lose their armored vehicles, but at least they had an excuse.

They say that the export of weapons without the consent of the manufacturer - Germany - is impossible.

It turned out that Scholz slowed down the common cause.

In addition, the British agreed to donate their Challenger (the fact that London is afraid for the safety of tank technologies, the world learned later).

The declared determination of the United States to give Kyiv “jet” Abrams completed the job.

Scholz could not stand such moral pressure and broke down, promising to do everything that was required of him.

Now it turned out that Abrams will not be until the end of the year, and the Europeans are sabotaging their promises.

Losing face?


Boris Pistorius, the new German Defense Minister, helped save Scholz's reputation.

At a meeting with the EU countries, he tried to achieve specific commitments to supply tanks to Ukraine.

But no country has named their exact number.

They hope that the whole world will somehow scrape together at least three dozen cars.

But how will this change the position of Kyiv on the battlefield?

More like bullying.

And Zelensky spoke about the same.

An example of a saboteur state is Portugal, which promised to transfer four cars to Ukraine.

Now they are asking the Germans for spare parts to keep the tanks running.

It turned out that there are 37 Leopards in the army hangars, but almost all of them are out of order.

This was found out by the Portuguese press (and then confirmed by the commander of the Armed Forces of Portugal, Admiral António Silva Ribeiro), having learned about the upcoming "gift" to Kyiv.

Neighbors in the Pyrenees - the Spaniards - are no better.

They have had 53 Leopards gathering dust in their warehouses in Zaragoza for more than ten years, which need to be restored.

Doing this is either expensive or not desirable.

The only country that partly kept its promises was Canada.

The day before, one (one!) Leopard tank was airlifted from there to Poland.

Starting today, it will become a training exhibit, where Ukrainian crews will train.

It would seem that what prevented Ottawa from sending all four promised tanks to Europe at once by sea, as the United States did, sending 60 pieces of Bradley infantry fighting vehicles?

No, we decided to keep the good, kurkuli.

Did the Ukrainian diaspora spoil them?

In general, the monetary factor should not be discounted.

US NATO allies - primarily in Europe - are beginning to understand that, losing stocks of tanks in favor of Nezalezhnaya (for now, a few vehicles, but tomorrow they may demand everything), they will one day face the need for new purchases.

And the new Leopard will cost a pretty penny.

Moreover, the United States may not allow Germany to earn on their exports and will impose their expensive Abrams on Europe, as they imposed gas on it.

Another reason for the slowness is the lack of confidence in the Ukrainian crews.

How can such people be entrusted with high-tech products of the German military-industrial complex?

They will sell them to Russian intelligence at the first opportunity.

And if so, you will have to send tank crews from among the military personnel of NATO countries.

Formally, this is possible.

At a recent conference at the Vienna Diplomatic Academy, Oberst Markus Reisner clearly stated that Ukrainians could be replaced by NATO “vacationers”.

They can, yes, but with what consequences?

For example, on Monday night, a group of Polish servicemen was shot by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Vuhledar.

That is, NATO members are killed in Ukraine by their own.

How many of them would like to take such a “vacation”?

But the main reason for European restraint is, of course, political.

The war of the West against Russia is more and more reminiscent of the unsuccessful Drang nach Osten of the middle of the 20th century (recall the revelations of the German minister Annalena Burbock).

Hitler was then supported by almost all of Europe.

Now - as the conflict develops - it becomes clear to an increasing number of politicians, and even ordinary people, how one day it can end for the Old World.

Here they are being careful.

Serbian President Vučić accurately pointed this out: “I think that the greatest mistake of the West is that they announced the delivery of tanks.

Especially German tanks.

And I'll tell you why - these are terrible tanks.

It is not known which is better - Challenger, Leopard or Abrams.

But now they have united the Russians in one day.”

Indeed, looking at the crosses of the Wehrmacht Balkenkreuz on the sides of armored monsters crawling across the land of Ukraine, every Russian will remember Stalingrad.

And he will make the same conclusion: it is necessary to burn.

In Russia, the production of Krasnopol guided artillery shells for the destruction of Abrams and Leopard tanks has increased several times, we read in today's news.

In Europe they also read, so they drift.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.