What Happens After Ukraine Gets M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 Tanks?

Most people in Ukraine and the West are happy with the Washington and Berlin decisions to give Ukraine the status of a sovereign nation. M1 Abrams Leopard 2 Tanks are not the most popular of all types, so it is hard to ask what should be the obvious. What’s next?? 

How will the White House react to these tanks arriving at their stations and Ukraine using them against Russia?

The truth is likely that no one in the Administration has bothered to think that far – continuing a bad trend in U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades that has uniformly resulted in bad outcomes for our country.

Giving without a Plan

Failing to form a coherent, realistic strategy regarding our support for Ukraine in its war with Russia risks squandering valuable military assets and financial resources – or worse – stumbling so badly that the U.S. or western powers are inadvertently sucked into a war we should never have been fought, and which could only harm our interests. In recent decades, our track record is poor in thinking through everything.

Numerous studies and reports have concluded that Operation Iraqi Freedom’s 2003 failure was due to the following: Washington failed To seriously consider the question “what comes next” following the campaign to destroy Saddam Hussein’s army. Choosing to militarily take down Iraq involved very little risk for the United States and required little creativity in the formation of the plan: Iraq’s once-vaunted military had been 1991 – eviscerated And languished beneath a Decades of crippling sanctions Saddam was unable to rebuild his army because of this. It was a house built of cards, waiting to be destroyed.

It was evident that the U.S. coalition successfully crushed any resistance organized by the Iraqis, effectively ending the conventional phase. In less than five weeks. However, there are some optimistic claims. “Iraqi democracy will succeed,” Washington didn’t know what to do when the tanks were gone. 

Next, the Pentagon and State Department searched for reasons to keep their presence. They even made up stuff along the road. The end result was perfect chaos, mission-shiftingAmerican servicemen and women number in the tens or thousands Victims of violence and deaths. Expect U.S. troops to For many years to come and the country’s government remains Highly unstable. 

Similar failures were caused by other mission-shifting operations. A lack of vision throughout. 20 years de facto combat in Afghanistan Support for military operations is not needed Saudi Arabia against the despised Yemenis No thought was given to what comes next in Obama’s Libya excursion of 2011 (Two governments To this day, claim sovereignty; a military SyriaIt is completely unrelated to any national security purpose and can be used in multiple locations All across Africa. 

The History of No Plan

Each of these cases was an example of how we didn’t have vision. “what comes next,” Our military continues to languish at each location with the unfortunate exception of Afghanistan. The evidence is mounting that we may repeat this apparent default condition in our engagements with Ukraine. There are a number of basic questions the White House should have asked – and answered – before taking any action in that war. 

A Plan of Action

Before the White House agreed to significantly increase our military and financial support to Kyiv following Russia’s February 24, 2022 invasion, Biden should have asked a number of admittedly hard questions and demanded policy options from his senior staff. Failing to ask and answer the tough questions – as has been done in each of the previously mentioned foreign excursions – leads to mission creep, mission expansion, and almost uniformly results in ultimate policy failure. 

Even though he should’ve done so 11 month ago, it’s possible now. Biden needs to answer these critical questions before the United States sends another piece of military gear to Ukraine.

What are America’s vital national interests as they relate to the Russia-Ukraine war?

What is the end goal of U.S. Support? 

What does military gear do to support the end goal?

What criteria will determine if the policy to support Ukraine is a success? How will the president determine if American actions have been successful or unsuccessful?

What is the strategy for the culmination? How will the support mission be concluded? If Russia starts to win on the battlefield, will the U.S. provide even more weapons and financial support – or if Russia starts to lose, will we moderate our support if Ukraine starts to push Russia so far that U.S. intelligence concludes a desperate Putin may resort to nuclear weapons?

These are important questions to be asked before diving too deeply into the operation. It is not clear that any of these questions were even considered or answered. This has serious implications for national security. 

The Unanswered Question

First and foremost, the president must delineate America’s most vital national interests. Do you want Russia to be defeated militarily? To “weaken” Russia (however defined)? To end the Putin regime. Simply to return the Russian troops to their February 24-2022 lines. Or to keep the war from spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders? To ensure the security of NATO and America? If we don’t know what outcome we even desire, how will we know if our policies are successful or a failure? 

Similarly, if we don’t know what we want to achieve, how will we know what – and how many – of each type of armament and ammunition type we should supply to Kyiv? Give too little, and the objective won’t be reached; give too much and Ukraine may go beyond what is in American interests.

The Consequence of Aid Without Answers

If we give blanket support to Zekensky’s stated desire to drive the Russian military out of all Ukrainian territory, for example, how does Biden ensure American objectives if the Ukrainian military starts to be so successful that Putin uses his enormous nuclear arsenal to stave off defeat? If Biden doesn’t agree to support Ukraine in going that far (and thus limits the number and type of military support, preventing Zelensky from winning on the ground), the result may be an indefinite stalemate that literally bleeds Ukraine dry of its people and leaves its land resembling a moonscape. 

It is crucial that the president answers all of these questions, and then craft a policy that will have the best chance at achieving outcomes that are both beneficial to our country and protect our allies. At a minimum, the White House should prioritize ensuring that we don’t provide so much military support to Ukraine that it puts our own security at risk by depleting our own stocks of vehicles and ammunition – Biden must quantify where those lines are.

The U.S. should end the conflict with Ukraine-Russia as soon as possible, and not allow for another conflict in the future. This is similar to how the terrible ending to World War I created the conditions for World War II. Our security depends on the long-term security of both the United States, Europe and Canada. Ending the war on mutually acceptable terms – and avoiding any overt or tacit security guarantees – gives Washington the best chance of long term security.

Author Biography and Expertise 

A 1945 Contributing Editor is also available. Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who deployed into combat zones four times – including the M1 Abrams tank heading to Ukraine. He is also the author “The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America.” Follow him @DanielLDavis

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases