WASHINGTON. Billions of dollars of new weapons announced this month for Ukraine, including British tanks, American vehicles and shells from Denmark and Sweden, show that Russian President Vladimir Putin has failed to split NATO allies after near wartime. However, small and significant cracks become too large to be hidden.

Differences over strategy for next year and the more pressing question of what Ukraine needs in the coming months as both sides prepare for major offensives in the spring. While most of these discussions are taking place behind closed doors, Britain’s impatience with the current pace of aid and Germany’s refusal to provide Ukraine with Leopard 2 tanks came out this week.

When Britain’s new foreign secretary, James Cleverley, recently visited Washington, he gathered reporters for lunch and said Ukraine could “win” the war this year if allies quickly exploited its weakness with Russia. Officials in Poland, the Baltic states and Finland largely agreed with the British assessment.

US officials are hesitant, saying it’s critical to speed up aid and not flood Ukraine with equipment that its troops can’t yet use. And they argue that in a world with limited resources, it would be wise to leave something in reserve for what the Pentagon says is likely to be a protracted conflict in which Russia attempts to destroy Ukraine with a relentless barrage of attacks and World War I-like tactics. War I and II.

On Friday, after a meeting in Germany of dozens of troop-contributing countries, General Mark Miley, head of the US military, repeated an assessment he made in the fall.

“This year it will be very, very difficult to force out Russian troops militarily,” he said. The best we can hope for is to push Russia into diplomatic talks – that’s how most wars end – though senior US diplomats say they have little hope of Putin’s intentions to start serious negotiations.

Then came the big bang from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his refusal to send what many military experts believe could be a decisive weapon in Ukraine’s hands: German-made Leopard 2 tanks.

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III spent days trying to convince the Germans to ship them, or at least allow Poland and other states using the tanks to re-export them. But by the time the meeting ended, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said no deal had been reached, although he said a decision would be made “as soon as possible.” He and Austin tried to focus on unity of effort in dealing with Russia rather than obvious differences over weapons.

Rule of another strategy

Differences in strategy between wartime allies are the rule, not the exception. During World War II, there was a big debate about whether we should first focus on defeating Nazi Germany and then turn to Japan, which actually attacked American soil. Similar discussions took place during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the United States provided the bulk of the fighting power, they usually had the upper hand.

But from interviews with American, British and other European officials, including senior military officials, it is clear that Ukraine is a different case. Only the Ukrainians are on the front lines, and no one wants to tell them how to fight a battle in which their forces, the only ones involved in daily brutality, have shown courage and determination. But as Russia and Ukraine plan new attacks, the debate over strategy and weaponry has reached what the NATO Secretary General called a “tipping point.”

Ukrainians make no secret of the fact that, however much they value the support of their allies, what they receive is not enough. When the UK announced earlier this week that it would be sending Challenger 2 tanks, Ukraine’s foreign minister and defense ministers issued a joint statement thanking the British government but adding that it was “not enough to meet operational objectives”.

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was, to put it mildly, cruel. Thanking the United States for a $2.5 billion contribution in arms and at least $3 billion announced a few weeks ago, he said, “Hundreds of thanks are not hundreds of tanks.”

In fact, speaking on German television, he said: “If you have a Leopard, then give it to us.”

American officials were clearly disappointed with the talks with the German government this week. Germany began by saying it would send Leopard tanks and allow others if the United States sent M-1 Abrams tanks.

The United States refused, saying they burn so much fuel – they use a jet engine – and require a supply line to make it work that it would be useless in Ukrainian conditions. (Officials dodged questions about why the tank, which is so difficult to work on the battlefields in Europe, is in US service.) The British Challenger and the German Leopard are more agile and faster.

Publicly, however, Austin and others have avoided criticizing Scholz, who they say has handled the biggest upheaval in German foreign policy, starting with the shutdown of two pipelines carrying natural gas from Russia, quite adroitly.

The real concern of the Sun

They suspect that Scholz’s real concern is that he thinks the world is not ready to see German tanks near Russia’s borders as a reminder of the Nazi invasion of World War II. A senior US official said this week that if Scholz and the German public are concerned about this, under the circumstances, “only they are concerned.”

While Germany hasn’t said yes to the Leopard mission this week, it hasn’t said no either – at least not yet. But Ukraine has very little time to launch a potentially decisive spring offensive before the Russians do, and tanks are a key part of that effort.

Before such a war breaks out, Ukraine must muster thousands of combat-ready troops, obtain advanced new weapons from the West, and train its soldiers on how to use and maintain these weapons. To do all this would be, in the words of General Milley, “a very, very difficult thing.”

This is why Germany’s delay in approving the tanks has been such a disappointment to Austin and other senior Western officials who have been trying all week to negotiate with their German counterparts to provide what Ukraine now needs to reclaim the territory.

“If we stop, limit or reduce aid, it will all be in vain,” Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra said in an interview. “We need to double the aid. There is no substitute for victory on the battlefield.”

Speaking about Germany’s current position, the British official said that London’s commitment to send Challenger tanks was intended to encourage other countries to do the same, and that the British government still hopes Germany will do the same.

In a press conference after Friday’s meeting, the US Secretary of Defense tried to play down the importance of the Leopards and highlight what Germany had to offer – combat vehicles, air defenses and training grounds for Ukrainian soldiers – no doubt hoping that Berlin would eventually respond to the underlying demand. Ukraine.

“It’s not really a unified system,” Austin said, quick to point out that Ukraine would receive more than 100 Bradley combat vehicles and almost 90 Stryker combat vehicles from the US, the equivalent of “two brigades of combat power.”

However, the US Secretary of Defense noted that time is not on the side of Ukraine. “Now we have a window of opportunity, from now until spring,” he said. “It’s not for long”.