The Real Reason NATO Won't Give Tanks to Ukraine

No, This Is Not a Tank

The government might claim that Western Main Battle Tanks are taboo because they risk escalating the conflict or because they are too hard to maintain. This is not the case: And these governments, to put it politely, are not being entirely forthcoming (as is often the case). After all, NATO is providing Ukraine with HIMARS, which provide Ukraine the ability to hit targets even in Crimea, and mobile artillery systems. Tanks do not seem that escalatory by comparison—nor do they seem much harder to maintain, esp. given that much of the maintenance is being done in neighbouring Poland. The ostensible explanations do not make much sense given the aid that is already being provided.

No, the real reason they are not handing over main battle tanks is something else entirely: It is the same reason the US heavily downgrades the tanks it sells Saudi Arabia. NATO is afraid that if they send modern main battle tanks to Ukraine, they will end up in enemy hands. NATO is afraid Russia will capture them.

This is unacceptable for three reasons: 1) The captured tanks would allow Russia to improve their own armour designs by studying their Chobham armour, 2) more importantly, captured tanks could be used to test new Russian munitions against Western armour, and 3) Russian crews could operate the tanks in real field exercises and try to determine what tactics work best against them.

Soviet tanks tend to rely on reactive armour, explosive "tiles" that use directed explosions to deflect incoming munitions, and combinations of iron plate with fibre glass sheets. They are lighter than American tanks, in part because Russia was concerned about being able to ford rivers, and because Russian defensive planning involved designing Russia's bridges so as to handle the weight of a Soviet tank but not be able to handle the weight of a NATO tank. The idea is that Soviet tanks could utilize these bridges while NATO could not. It was hoped that this would allow Russia to surround NATO tank formations during a river crossing.

Of course, one could argue that NATO could simply downgrade these tanks just as it does when delivering M1A’s to Saudi Arabia. However, pictures of Russian armaments smashing American made tanks would provide Putin with a propaganda victory that no one in the West wants to gift him: It is far better to give top of the line tanks to Poland and have Poland pass on its T-72’s to Ukraine. Then, when Russia shows its populace pictures of smashed tanks, it will be forced to show the deficiencies of its own armaments industry. And if Russia captures these tanks, it will learn nothing from them. Indeed, if tanks as such were escalatory, why would it be okay to give T-72’s to Ukraine? The very fact that we were happy to allow Poland to pass on its T-72’s suggests a lot about the true motivations for not giving Ukraine Western tanks.

The recent decision on the part of the French to give AMX-10s to Ukraine makes a great deal more sense in light of the above. While the AMX-10 looks like a tank, it does not incorporate any of the advanced armour technologies NATO main battle tanks deploy (also, it relies on wheels rather than treads for anyone who wants to get technical about it). In fact, its base is made out of aluminium: It had to have basic steel armour added. Russia is very unlikely to garner any meaningful intelligence if they are captured.

The ostensible explanations regarding what equipment can and cannot be offered to Ukraine are often not the real ones. If an explanation seems not to make sense, ask yourself what others could be in play.

What do French AMX-10RC mean for Ukraine? - YouTube