Honorable Member, after months of debate about the supply of main battle tanks to Ukraine, the solution is to supply 31 American Abrams for the end of the German blockade, Leopard 2.

In retrospect, such a solution seemed obvious.

Why did you have to argue about it for so long?

Majid Sattar

Political correspondent for North America based in Washington.

  • Follow I follow

It's about balancing two goals that President Biden and allies have set for themselves.

First: to help Ukraine, as a sovereign and democratic state, to defend itself.

Second: to prevent a third world war.

It's a difficult balancing act that all allies are trying to pull off: supporting Ukraine but avoiding a direct confrontation with Russia.

With every new weapon system that is delivered, it is a matter of weighing the risk of escalation.

The conflict must not become nuclear.

Germany is particularly sensitive in this balancing act: the Germans point out that the conflict is closer for them than for us.

And they've been focused on being a peaceful nation for a good seven decades.

In my perception, therefore, they did not want to be the first to supply main battle tanks.

The problem on our side was that the M1 Abrams tank is not as easy to use on the battlefield as the Leopard 2. It's about fuel and spare parts.

In short: it's complicated.

So we weren't sure if this is the right answer.

But Germany needed our leadership to be able to provide German battle tanks itself.

That's why we took the lead.

There are two perspectives: On the one hand, America has shown leadership and overlooked the technical problems in order to promote the German decision.

On the other hand, one can argue that Scholz's insistence on moving in lockstep pushed Americans into action.

Did he lead from behind?

Led from the background?

I hate the wording.

It's just complicated to maintain unity in the Alliance.

In democracies, the rulers have to win approval for their policies.

In this case, Germany did not want parts of its population to say that the government was escalating the conflict.

Following America is politically easier.

In this respect, both sides have found a good solution.

Would it have been better if we had found these sooner?

Secure.

But one should not lose sight of the fact that America and Germany, together with other partners, have provided exceptional amounts of military aid to Ukraine over the past year.

That's why you can confidently say that America and Germany are both leading from the front - and not from behind.

Wasn't Scholz's refusal to march alone also an expression of a certain mistrust of America with regard to the obligation to provide assistance?

Did he want to make sure he wasn't isolated if Vladimir Putin escalated the war?

This may be a consequence of the Trump presidency.

Distrust is saying too much.

But every partnership is about mutual interests.

And in addition to the common interests, there are always self-interests.

In this respect, it is about clever navigation.

But I don't have the impression that Germany is questioning our obligations in NATO.