There may be many reasons.

Possibly one is Russia has some goods on Sholz or other senior politicians and can simply blackmail them. German politics, like Hungary, is stacked with pro Russian or Russian controlled people.

Germany is a fragile coalition, it takes only a few dissenters to topple the government.

Then there is the financial aspect, German companies have invested heavily in Russia and Ukraine, and lent a lot of money there. They don't want to lose the lot by antagonising Russia further.

Germany claims there is no consensus to send Leopards, yet there appears to be not one other country objecting. And anyway, they don't need consensus, it's their decision alone. They are just making excuses.

As with COVID vaccines, they seem unable to think or act for themselves. They have to wait until everyone gives permission. Such is the way in the EU, individual thought is gone.


Right now Russia is preparing half a million troops and 800 upgraded T62 tanks. At some point these will hit a single point like a sledgehammer. The front will break and the Russians don't care if they lose 700 tanks doing it. Classic Soviet doctrine. It will make Prokhorovka look like a skirmish.

Ukraine needs to stop them and then defeat them, and it can't do that without modern tanks. Lots of them. When it happens it will be too late to send Leopards then. Without tanks, Ukraine will ultimately lose.

Germany is prepared to sit around and watch this happen. Shameful. Disgraceful.

Such is Berliningrad today.

Well I assume it's largely because they would like the Ivans to switch the gas back on at some point. Switching to 'alternative energy sources' has pushed up inflation and pissed the public off. They are also losing their swampy credibility now they have had to burn a shed load more coal!

Lack of a nuclear deterrent is also a bit of an issue when it comes to how tough Germany can get. Turns out 'soft power' = 'no power'. In the words of Al Capone, "You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone".

Isn't the elephant in the room why there's 1,000'sof Leopard tanks used by many countries, while there's only a handful of Challngers used only by the UK & Oman?

But isn't that pretty much what the glory run on Kiev in the early days of the war was supposed to be? A sledgehammer blow. But it failed, apparently largely due to logistics incompetence (and heroic Ukrainian efforts, of course). And that was before Ukraine had HIMARS, a weapon system designed for the express purpose of killing the logistical hubs needed to pull off mass tank assaults. 800 tanks are of limited use if their ammo dumps and fuel depots keep exploding behind them.

Sticking too stubbornly to "Classic Soviet Doctrine" may well be what'll ultimately lose the war for Russia, if they cannot adapt to changing modern battlefield realities.

Certainly agree tanks for Ukraine would be a good thing.

I do remember seeing a clip from Russian TV (possibly via the "War Translated" Twitter guy) with some pundit saying something like "what the West doesn't understand is that there is no level of losses that we regard as unacceptable". But having read some histories of the WWII Eastern Front, I can see where the attitude comes from. And so the meatgrinder will continue, until something more decisive happens.

Easy to overlook that Russia is still in the easy stage of its "Special Miltary Operation". But the really hard part is occupying a country.