It’s been a month since Ukraine quantified its need for heavy tanks to counter the Russian steamroller, and weeks since some of its allies – Poland leading the way – have offered to hand over their Leopard 2 tanks. A Ukrainian official On ABC News, there are even 12 countries that pledged last Friday, during a summit at the American Ramstein base in Germany, to bring a total of 100 copies to the front. But Germany, which produces these armored vehicles, must give its prior consent before any transfer of the armored vehicles to a third country.
And you have to believe that the blockade is deep because days go by and Westerners are still waiting for the green light from Berlin. Ukraine therefore also has to wait to receive the tanks promised to it.
“Re-export”
In fact, a state can own Leopard 2 tanks and have duly paid for them, but cannot send them to one of its partners, even to invaded Ukraine, as it sees fit. The reason is simple, and contractual: as franceinfo points out here, contracts for the sale of military equipment are drawn up in accordance with the Arms Trade Treaty, to which Germany is a signatory (as is France). These documents include “re-export” clauses. As its title indicates, this provision covers the transfer of the weapon or war artifact in question from the first beneficiary to another nation.
It is under this “re-export” provision that the buyer must seek manufacturer approval before delivering or reselling the target equipment, here the Leopard 2 tanks. The idea is, of course, that the producing country retains the right of scrutiny. about this transaction to protect himself from the risk of seeing his weapons fall into hands that would be hostile to him (or his allies), in the arsenal of dictatorial countries or those subject to an embargo.
Beyond that, it is a question of not offering a parallel but legal trade of resale of this ultrasensitive material, then escaping from their control. In addition, arms exports to countries outside the European Union or NATO -such as Ukraine- are in principle “prohibited” unless they are justified by “specific considerations”, states this official text.
The criteria for a “careful” examination
Therefore, it is up to Germany to proceed, in the event of an application, to a “thorough”, “in-depth” and “detailed” examination of the application, according to the terms used by the site of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Economy, decision of last resort. Precise criteria preside over the arbitration, as listed in the same source:
“During each detailed examination, the maintenance of peace, security and stability, as well as respect for human rights, are of paramount importance.”
In addition, the team must not threaten to cause “the aggravation of the crises.”
Cacophony
In addition to the legal field, German procrastination is also political in nature. On the one hand, although ultimately it is up to the Ministry of Economy to complete the form, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defense and the Foreign Ministry are also involved in the process. This leads to a risk of slowdown, with greater reason to the extent that government remains a heavy machine in a German system that gives pride of place to coalitions.
Patrick Sauce, our columnist in charge of international affairs, thus recalled on our set this Tuesday that the parties that made up the ruling alliance were linked by a “coalition contract (…) where everything is inscribed: from the economy to ecology going through the army, weapons, the military policy of Germany”.
We better understand the cacophony of the last days. Thus, Annalena Baerbock, Minister of Foreign Affairs (ecologist), assured on Sunday night that “Germany will not oppose” the shipment of Leopard to Ukraine if Poland, and the nations that wish to act on its example, explicitly request it. The Polish executive was quick to respond, saying it had been issued, adding that he could dispense with the Berlin discharge if it was still a long time coming. And this Tuesday, it was the turn of the socialist Boris Pistorius to “encourage” the supplier countries of the Leopard 2 to train Ukrainian tankers in the use of armored vehicles.
However, without reaching an explicit authorization. Another sign, the impression of which is reinforced by Olaf Scholz’s lack of enthusiasm, is that German environmentalists are more voluntaristic about sending tanks than their SPD colleagues.
Don’t confuse leopard and tiger
Finally, it is a symbolic or historical obstacle to the agreement on the transfer of Leopard 2. And not least. “Germany paid a lot after having made the world pay a lot,” introduced Patrick Sauce, before completing:
“In 1945 we decided to destroy the military potential of the Germans. It is an army that is not made to be used.”
Certainly, Germany is well disposed towards Ukraine, but not necessarily to the point of repudiating almost 80 years of pacifism… “We really need a 180°C change. Already the fact that Germany has increased its military budget considerably, and even multiplied by ten, it’s historic,” continued Patrick Sauce.
This historical superego did not stop the Germans from producing range quantities of Leopard 2s. 2000 copies are operational across Europe. However, if it were to be redone, perhaps the German engineers would choose to design differently. Because the wall of the tank displays a character of sinister memory: an iron cross.
“This iron cross is the one we saw in the history books along with the swastika during the 1939-1945 war. What the Germans don’t want is this type of tank with the cross on the side going all the way to Russia, if the The Ukrainians do more than defend themselves, and we don’t want to see on Russian channels a captured tank with a general in front saying: ‘See, these are the Nazis who make war, we told you so,’ analyzed editorialist Patrick Sauce. Propaganda that would be devastating for Ukraine but also for Germany,” the journalist concluded.
Indeed, it would be a question of not leaving the enemy the pleasure of repainting the Leopards as heirs of the disastrous Tiger panzers.
Source: BFM TV
