U.S. and European nations sending more arms to Ukraine, but not tanks

Read the Full Transcript

• Geoff Bennett:

  Ukraine will soon receive an unprecedented amount of new weapons systems, thanks to a deal made by a group of some 50 nations today. But the weapons do not include the one item that Ukraine calls its priority, Western tanks.

  Nick Schifrin reports.

• Nick Schifrin:

  For Ukraine's Western military support, today was the best of times and the worst of times.

  For the first time, the U.S. will send Stryker armored personnel carriers. That's in addition to hundreds more Bradley Fighting Vehicles and European armored vehicles designed to provide Ukraine with the fundamental building blocks for how modern armies fight.

  It's a major upgrade to Ukraine's mostly Soviet era armor to help Kyiv try and reseize occupied territory.

  Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin:

  Lloyd Austin, U.S. Secretary of Defense: This is a very, very capable package. And they — if employed properly, it will enable them to be successful.

• Nick Schifrin:

  But Ukraine did not get the item it says it most needs, Western tanks.

  There are 2,000 German Leopard 2 tanks across Europe. Germany today resisted calls to send its own tanks or allow other countries to re-export their Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy:

• Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainian President:

  And I can thank you hundreds of times. And it will be absolutely just and fair, given all that we have already done, but, but hundreds of thank you are not hundreds of tanks.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Poland's Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki:

• Mateusz Morawiecki, Polish Prime Minister (through translator):

  The Germans are defending themselves against this like a devil protects himself against holy water.

• Nick Schifrin:

  The U.S. and Europe are upgrading Soviet era tanks. But the U.S. too has refused to send its own M1 Abrams tanks. U.S. officials say its jet engine and jet fuel make it unsustainable.

  Germany's government says they will only approve tanks as part of what they call a transatlantic lockstep decision.

• Boris Pistorius, German Defense Minister:

  We don't fear anything. We are — we have a responsibility for our population in Germany and in Europe. And we have to balance all the pros and cons before we decide things like that.

  Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges (RET.), U.S. Army: There's a reason you have tanks. The tank can absorb hits from almost anything.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Retired General Ben Hodges is the former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe.

• Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges:

  The gun it has, the commander's station, the ability to find targets, it's unsurpassed. So, whether it's an Abrams or a Leopard, that kind of capability would be needed as part of the spearhead.

• Nick Schifrin:

  When the U.S. Army fights, it uses what it calls combined arms infantry, artillery, but also tanks that the U.S. sells all over the world.

  U.S. officials say that M1 Abrams tanks are too difficult for Ukraine to maintain. The Abrams has a jet engine, requires a jet fuel. What's your response to that?

• Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges:

  I think these are a series of statements that are not really inaccurate, but it's sort of a condescending attitude. And I would say, let the Ukrainians figure it out. They can figure out how to do the fuel. We do it. Egyptians do it. Saudis do it.

• Lloyd Austin:

  It will enable the Ukrainians to be successful.

• Nick Schifrin:

  The U.S. says its long-term goal is to give Ukraine the strongest possible position at the negotiating table. It doesn't use the word victory.

• Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges:

  The problem is, the secretary never says what success is. And, to me, this has been the missing thing all along.

  Instead of saying, we want to help Ukraine win, we talk around that a little bit. If we don't get that part right here, this war will go on a lot longer than it could.

• Nick Schifrin:

  On German tanks, the National Security Council spokesman said today the U.S. was not — quote — "arm-twisting" Germany, but working inside the coalition to provide Ukraine what it needs.

  For more on all this, we turn to the undersecretary of defense for policy, Colin Kahl, who joins us from the Pentagon.

  Colin Kahl, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

  As we heard from the secretary of defense earlier and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the goal of the weapons packages that the U.S. and allies have announced in the last day are to conduct what the U.S. calls combined arms, in order for Ukraine to liberate occupied territory.

  And yet a key component of combined arms is the tanks. So, are you tying one of Ukraine's arms behind its back by not providing those Western tanks?

  Colin Kahl, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy: Thanks, Nick. Thanks for having me on.

  Look, I think the main message coming out of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which was this meeting of more than four dozen countries at Ramstein Air Base, was one of unity and solidarity in support of Ukraine.

  As the lead-in noted, we announced a package in the last 24 hours of $2.5 billion of additional assistance. That brings the total to close to $27 billion since Russia's invasion last February. All told, allies and partners have provided enough armor for several mechanized brigades.

  So, as Secretary of Defense Austin made clear, we do believe that we are providing Ukraine the capabilities, in combination with the training, to allow them to change the dynamic on the battlefield and really move away from the kind of trench-style warfare that we're seeing in places like Bakhmut and Soledar to being better able to combine fire and maneuver.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Brigades, of course, an average of about 3,500 troops each, kind of the building blocks for how the U.S. thinks about how to fight.

  But didn't we see at the beginning of the war what happens when you don't conduct combined arms? The Russians, after all, did it piecemeal and the Ukrainians picked them apart. So is there still the ability for Ukraine to conduct what the U.S. calls combined arms without these Western tanks at once?

• Colin Kahl:

  I have no doubt that the Ukrainians can engage in combined arms warfare.

  But it's not just about stuff. It's about the training, the collective training, in particular. We're working alongside Ukrainian forces to precisely train them on the types of combined arms maneuver warfare that you referenced.

  And I will just say, on the tanks issue, we saw from the German defense minister today that they're still engaged in ongoing deliberations on the Leopards. We know that there are more than a dozen countries that also have Leopard tanks, and they're having conversations with Germany.

  So I think we just have to let this process play out.

• Nick Schifrin:

  When it comes to us M1 Abrams tanks, you heard Retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, call the argument that the Abrams is too difficult to maintain because of its jet engine and jet fuel — quote — "condescending" and the Ukrainians can figure out how to keep the M1 Abrams going.

  Why do you think they can't?

• Colin Kahl:

  Well, I don't think the argument is that they can't.

  The question is, can you deliver the capability on a relevant time frame and at a level that's sustainable over time? And the challenge with the Abrams is, it's expensive, it's difficult to train on, it is very difficult to sustain. It has a huge, complicated turbine engine that requires jet fuel.

  And, frankly, if we're looking at delivering of Ukrainians a capability they can use in the next couple of months to try to change the dynamic on the battlefield, our assessment is just that the Abrams is not the right capability at this time.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Another way to change the dynamic on the battlefield would, of course, be to threaten Crimea, which Russia has occupied since 2014.

  Is it a U.S. goal to enable Ukraine to threaten Russia's hold on Crimea?

• Colin Kahl:

  Crimea legally and in the eyes of most of the world, Vladimir Putin notwithstanding, is Ukraine.

  So, it is occupied Ukraine. And if the Ukrainians decide to conduct operations in Crimea, that is their decision.

• Nick Schifrin:

  The British foreign secretary, James Cleverly, was in Washington, D.C., this past week, and he said this: "If we want to bring this to a successful conclusion, we should look to bring it to a conclusion quickly. The conclusion has to be Ukrainian victory."

  That is not a word that the United States uses. Why not?

• Colin Kahl:

  Well, because it's not our — it's not our word to choose.

  The Ukrainians will be the ones who define what the parameters of success are in their campaign. I will say this. It has been our strategic objective to enable the Ukrainians to achieve success as they define it, and also to ensure that the conflict is a strategic failure for Vladimir Putin and Russia.

  And, in that, the war to date has been a huge failure for Russia. Ukraine endures as an independent, sovereign democratic country. Russia wanted to end that. NATO is stronger. It's not weaker. The world is more united, not more divided. And Russia is weaker, not stronger.

  So, along every metric that Vladimir Putin set out at the beginning of this war, he has failed. And I expect he will continue to do so.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Does that mean you're trying to give Ukraine enough weapons to make sure that Russia doesn't win, but not enough weapons for Ukraine to achieve victory?

• Colin Kahl:

  We are providing Ukraine the capability they need to reseize the territory that Russia occupied from them.

  The exact parameters of Ukrainian success or victory is something that the government in Kyiv will define.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Colin Kahl, finally, while I have you, you were then-Vice President Biden's national security adviser at the end of the Obama administration in January 2017.

  What were the vice president and yours practices when it comes to handling classified documents, which, of course, is in the news? And going forward, will you cooperate with any kind of special counsel or congressional requests for investigation?

• Colin Kahl:

  Look, I know there's a lot of interest in this topic. I can't really comment on it, given the ongoing DOJ investigation.

  But, like the rest of the administration, I stand ready to cooperate. And I know that officials at the White House and other senior officials have made that clear. We will do everything we need to do to cooperate with the Department of Justice.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Colin Kahl, thank you very much.

• Colin Kahl:

  Thank you.