Today, Explained - Thanks but no tanks, Ukraine

Episode Date: January 23, 2023

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Ukraine desperately needs tanks to fight Russia. The US, which has provided many other weapons, is refusing. This episode was produced by Victoria Chamberlin, edited and fact-checked by Matt Collette, engineered by Paul Robert Mounsey, and hosted by Noel King. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained   Support Today, Explained by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If there's one place in all of Ukraine that illustrates how the war there is going, it may be the city of Bakhmut. Everywhere here is in the line of fire, and the casualties on both sides have been staggering. Since August, Russian and Ukrainian forces have been involved in a brutal tug of war over that city. Bakhmut is of very little strategic importance, but Russia badly needs a win, and Ukraine is refusing to back down. The slogan Bakhmut holds is ubiquitous now. Ukrainian soldiers told us Russian forces are now on the edge of the city. And they say they desperately need more modern weapons if they're to stop Vladimir Putin's army in its tracks. Late last week, the U.S. promised to send a shipment of arms valued at $2.5 billion

to Ukraine. But there is something Ukraine badly wants. American-made Abrams tanks, and the U.S. won't give them. And while the U.S. is holding off on tanks, Germany is too. Why? Coming up on Today Explained. Bet MGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with Bet MGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about Bet MGM. Download the app today and discover why Bet MGM is your basketball home for the season.

Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk, and authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. It's Today Explained. I'm Noelle King. Isabel Kershudian is the Ukraine bureau chief for The Washington Post.

When I spoke to her recently, she was in Kiev, but over the summer, she was in the now fiercely contested city of Bakhmut. Bakhmut is a city in eastern Ukraine in what's known as the Donbass region, you know, kind of an industrial region that have seen a lot of fighting really for the past nine years, since 2014. Since Russia's full-scale invasion, it's now become the front line and the hottest place on the front line.

On the front lines near Bakhmut, there's a constant sound of shells flying overhead. Trenches and bunkers are the only cover out here. Ukrainian soldiers wait for their reconnaissance drone teams to send them details of Russian troops. But whenever they fire, Russian troops fire back. I think the Russians placed a great level of importance on it, especially, you know, the Wagner paramilitary group, which are often contract fighters, a lot of times ex-convicts. Evgeny Prokhorin, an oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, who runs this paramilitary group, he recruits people from Russian prisons.

Ukrainian military analyst Oleksandr Kovalenko says arming hardened criminals has created the risk of even more battlefield atrocities. With those convicts, Prigozhin can commit any crime he thinks necessary to win the battle. He said all he's done is build a blood business. It's taken on a lot of symbolic kind of significance to the Ukrainians as well. They call it a fortress. They have a lot of brigades and battalions tied up there. For Russia, they really want it because they need a win. And they would show sort of at least one victory when everything else is kind of not going so well for them.

Why are mercenaries in Bakhmut? Why isn't the Russian army fighting there? These fighters are pretty expendable. You know, there's not going to be an outcry if you're losing a lot of these guys, right? They don't have mothers and wives and things of that sort waiting for them back in Russia. Some of them are, you know, fairly experienced fighters who have been to Syria and other campaigns before. But some of them are not. And it's a kind of an easy resource. They take heavy, heavy casualties, but at the same time, they're tying up a lot of actual Ukrainian proper military, some of Ukraine's best fighters and best brigades. And Ukraine is also taking losses. So for Russia, while it's able to kind of expend what it sees as, you know, not an important resource for them and let their sort

of main military focus elsewhere and on other parts of the front, Ukraine is having to devote quite a large portion of its forces to this one area to just kind of hold the defense and is also taking losses when it just had less people to begin with. The Russian army has had some wins, but it has also lost repeatedly against Ukraine. The interesting thing about Bakhmut is that it is still contested after a very long time. Is there a sense that the Wagner group is actually fighting better or more successfully than the Russian army? I guess it depends on how you measure success, right? Western military analysts and also military intelligence officials all say

that Bakhmut does not have that much strategic significance. The war will not turn on Bakhmut. Ukraine will not lose that much. I mean, obviously, Ukraine fights for its cities and its land, but military strategy-wise, it's not going to lose that much if it has to step back from Bakhmut. You know, they've been fighting like this, where they've been losing a lot of people for a long time. Russia has. So is that success when you're kind of storming constantly and sending hundreds and hundreds of fighters forward all the time and still aren't able to take a city or, you know, eventually, yes, like you might be able to do it. But what are you really gaining? Is that a win? Both sides have made a big deal out of it because

of the fighting that has been going on. So for Russia, it's a place where they see the best chance to get a win. For Wagner specifically, for Prigozhin, it's a place for him to say, look how awesome my Wagner forces are, and for him to get a personal win. The head of the Wagner mercenary group, Evgeny Prigozhin, is now believed to have confronted Vladimir Putin himself about the mismanagement of the war, according to American officials. A taunt to the Russian army's top brass. Leak away so they know we're not just picking our noses here. And for Ukraine, it's become this sort of icon of resistance. You know, look how long we can hold out here and how many Russians we can kill here. And Zelensky compared it to the Battle of Saratoga.

Just like the Battle of Saratoga, the fight for Bakhmut will change the trajectory of our war for independence and for freedom. For Ukraine, like I said, it doesn't have as much military strategic significance. However, because now so many people in the world know Bakhmut, who did not know this place existed before. Ukraine doesn't want to take the morale loss or even the PR loss. And Russia really, really badly needs a PR win when things have obviously not been going well. And so you have two sides really digging in kind of on symbolic purposes at this point. Is anyone suggesting that if this would be a symbolic win rather than a strategic win, maybe Ukraine should just give this city up?

Is that being talked about at all? You know, it's easy for us to armchair this and say you should step back from there. Ultimately, for Ukrainians, it's a highly personal thing. They've already lost a lot of people there. So, you know, were all those losses for naught if you were just going to step back from it? And it's still, you know, one of their cities. And they take that incredibly personally. It's hard to just leave people there to just say we're going to step back from it. And it's still, you know, one of their cities and they take that incredibly personally. It's hard to just leave people there to just say we're going to step back. But they might have to make a choice like that where maybe they don't have quite as many forces

committed or they think about a strategic retreat or something like this. I just don't think they're there yet. And they haven't really been pressured to be there yet to this point. What is the state of the war in Ukraine overall right now? Things have largely frozen, you know, outside of Bakhmut and maybe a couple other areas where there's some fighting. You don't see a lot of movement in the lines like you did, you know, in the fall where you had these big Ukrainian counteroffensives, I think those were planned and timed because the Ukrainians were worried that once winter set in, you know, it would just be difficult with weather conditions, the ground conditions. It's very muddy. This is sort of a predictable flow where now both sides are likely gearing up for, you know, more offensive actions in like a month

or two. But we'll see this kind of stabilization of the lines outside of a few places for the time being, I think. Where do you think this war is headed in a month or two? Let's say Russia takes Bakhmut, right, which is entirely possible, and it probably will eventually happen. You know, from there, they will probably try to continue pushing east in the Donetsk region to sort of consolidate, you know, what hold they want on the Donbass. I think for Ukraine, you know, the most likely place for a counteroffensive would be somewhere in the direction of Militopol in the south to cut off what's called a land bridge, you know, connecting southern Russia proper with occupied Crimea. And that's a huge

logistical kind of advantage for Russia right now to have this land connection that they can use for resupply and logistics to be able to take back a place like Militopol on the coast would really make Russia's operations in southern Ukraine, where they have a significant amount of territory still occupied, it would make it quite difficult for them. So I think Ukraine's focus will be there. And I do think Russia is preparing to potentially mobilize more fighters. And you make a harder push in the east where it seems like they have more success than other parts of Ukraine. We are approaching a year of this war.

It is a war that I think a lot of people, a lot of very smart people, did not think would last a year. And it's become a war of attrition. How many casualties have Ukraine and Russia seen at this point? It's hard to say because neither side honestly reveals their numbers. You know, I've seen U.S. General Milley say that... You're looking at well over 100,000 Russian soldiers killed and wounded. Same thing probably on the Ukrainian side. A lot of human suffering.

And that's just on the military side. That's not counting civilian deaths. And for Ukraine, those numbers are incomplete too, because obviously, Mariupol specifically, there would have been a heavy, heavy civilian casualty count there that I don't know that there will ever be a great estimate of it. I mean, it's got to be over 10,000, I would think, just because of the level of bombardment there. But definitely the highest casualties still remain soldiers, people fighting on the front lines. And I think when the dust settles, it's going to be a quite shocking amount.

Coming up, thanks, but no tanks. Ukraine says it desperately needs U.S. and German-made tanks, and its allies have given so many other weapons. So why are they holding off on the tanks? Support for Today Explained comes from Aura. Thank you. limited photos and videos directly from your phone to the frame. When you give an AuraFrame as a gift, you can personalize it. You can preload it with a thoughtful message, maybe your favorite photos. Our colleague Andrew tried an AuraFrame for himself. So setup was super simple. In my case, we were celebrating my grandmother's birthday and she's very fortunate. She's got 10 grandkids. And so we wanted to surprise her with the Aura Frame.

And because she's a little bit older, it was just easier for us to source all the images together and have them uploaded to the frame itself. And because we're all connected over text message, it was just so easy to send a link to everybody. You can save on the perfect gift by visiting AuraFrames.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carvermat frames with promo code EXPLAINED at checkout. That's A-U-R-A-Frames.com promo code EXPLAINED. This deal is exclusive to listeners and available just in time for the holidays. Terms and conditions do apply. Ukraine holds its lines and will never surrender. The tyranny, which has no lack of cruelty against the lives of free people,

and your support is crucial, not just to stand in such fight, but to get to the turning point, to win on the battlefield. It's Today Explained. I'm Noelle King. There was a conspicuous bit of bipartisan agreement on the big Sunday political talk shows yesterday. Republican Representative Michael McCaul, the new chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested on ABC's This Week that the U.S. send even just one Abrams tank to Ukraine.

If we announced we were going to give Abr. send even just one Abrams tank to Ukraine. If we announced we were going to give Abrams tanks, just one, that would unleash, that would give Germany the, what I hear is that Germany is waiting for us to take the lead. Then they would put Leopard tanks in. Because he said if the U.S. sends even one Abrams tank, then Germany, which is holding off on sending its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, would be prompted to act, would be prompted to send them. Democratic Senator Chris Coons, also on ABC's This Week, sounded very much like McCaul. If it requires our sending some Abrams tanks in order to unlock getting the Leopard tanks from Germany, from Poland, from other allies, I would support that.

All right, we've been talking to Isabel Krushudian, who's the Ukraine bureau chief for The Washington Post. This discussion over what weapons the U.S. will give to Ukraine goes back more or less to the start of the war. But back in December, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky came to Washington, and he met with President Biden, and he talked to Congress, and at the time, he made some requests. I think he asked for more weapons. I mean, that's always what you ask for in that situation.

We have artillery. Yes. Thank you. Is it enough? Honestly, not really. But the point of that trip ultimately was go to your biggest backer and take the opportunity to kind of make your case. For the Russian army to completely pull out more cannons and shells are needed. But crucially, Zelensky did not ask for something in his address to Congress. And that was tanks. Instead, he alluded to them saying, quote, I assure you that Ukrainian soldiers can perfectly operate American tanks and planes themselves. And he may have alluded rather than asked, because when it comes to tanks,

the United States keeps turning him down. I don't think the U.S. is going to give tanks specifically. They've been pretty hesitant on that. But other Western countries look to the U.S. to usually be the first to give and then they follow suit. So it's important for, I think, Zelensky in those moments to say, we want to do a counteroffensive. This is why we need it. And if we do this, then we will be able to take back this territory, and the war will be over sooner, and that's less of a headache for you. I think usually the conversation goes like this. Don't wait to give us something because you're just that drags this out. And it's in everybody's best interest for this to end quickly. Why does Ukraine want tanks so badly? And why is the United States saying,

ah, no, this is where we draw the line, guys? The specific tank is, you know, an Abrams. It has main guns that can shoot projectiles up to 4.7 inches in size, extremely rigid armor fitted with extra layers of steel and depleted uranium, and caterpillar tracks powered by gas turbine engines. There are some weapons that U.S. gives to Ukraine that they take out some level of the proprietary technology, or they modify the weapon. With an Abrams, that's pretty much impossible with the integrated system.

And if that Abrams lands in the wrong hands, i.e. Russian, it's a problem for the United States. So I think that's part of it. And they see them as being complicated, difficult to train on, that it would take a long time. It's maybe not suitable for the terrain here which as i've said is very muddy boggy there are pontoon bridges that you know maybe they would be too heavy for things of that sort um i think they have a lot of reasons and

you know they see other countries as having tanks that are more suitable why does ukraine need them because when you go on the offensive you you need to go with tanks, right? That's how you move forward. Tanks are not really a defensive thing. They're not good for, you know, holding a line. They are something that you use to move forward. And Ukraine has been kind of pushing for tanks really since summer because they started to see that they had opportunities for offensives. And this is what they needed to kind of go forward safely and really push that way.

Ukraine never asked the American soldiers to fight on our land instead of us. I assure you that Ukrainian soldiers can perfectly operate American tanks and planes themselves. And then late last week, we get some news that the U.S. is going to send some more weapons to Ukraine. Which weapons specifically and why? Yeah, these will be the infantry fighting vehicles. 59 more Bradleys, 90 Strikers, 53 MRAPs, and 350 up-armored Humvees. It's not a tank, but I think the Ukrainians will happily take it because, again, they need armored vehicles, and it sets a precedent for the U.K. to send challengers,

for Germany to send some of its armored vehicles. Our new package provides even more air defense capabilities to help Ukraine defend its cities and its skies. And that includes NASAM's munitions and eight Avenger air defense systems. This is, again, a sign that Ukraine is preparing for a counteroffensive, that countries are preparing Ukraine for a counteroffensive. Early in the war, Ukraine wasn't always open with what its plans were.

It kept them a lot closer to the chest. And so, you know, maybe they would ask for certain things. And, you know, if you're the U.S., you don't know what it's for, and your reaction is no. Now I think there is more open lines of communication where Ukraine is saying, this is how we want to use it, and this is why we need it. And it makes, I think,

the process a little bit easier, an easier sell, I guess I would say. What about troops? Are U.S. troops or NATO troops getting any closer to Ukraine? I mean, I don't think we'll see the day when NATO troops fight in Ukraine. Now, do our NATO troops getting closer to Ukraine in the sense that they're training more Ukrainian soldiers? Yes. They're America's go-to combat troops. Go, go, go, go. The soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division, now the closest U.S. forces to the fight in Ukraine. If you're going to fight with less people, you need them to be fighting better. And that's where NATO training and things of that sort become really, really important. American service members now training Ukrainian troops in Germany as the fighting in Ukraine rages on. The military says the goal is to get

a battalion about 500 troops trained up and back on the battlefield every five to eight weeks. But I think it's also just trying to get some, you know, basic level training that will help Ukraine not only fight with less people, but just kind of get more experienced fighters on the ground. Is it conceivable that any of Russia's allies could become involved in this war in this new year? The only one that I would say would be conceivable

is Belarus. Belarus, you know, there has been a lot of movement where Russia has been moving equipment, planes, by planes I mean jets, things of that sort into Belarus proper. They do fire missiles occasionally from there on Ukrainian targets. But to this point, Belarusian soldiers have not gotten involved and the Belarusian military itself has not gotten involved. You know, the two countries are pretty close. There have been some meetings between, you know, the Belarusian minister of defense and Russia's and, you know, Belarusian President Lukashenko and Putin. But I don't expect it to happen.

It could be a distraction technique, too, where Ukraine is kind of forced to keep one eye on that border and keep some forces back, kind of monitoring that border while also fighting in the east. I think it's more to do with that strategy wise, how to split Ukraine's forces up rather than, you know, a serious threat. You've been covering this war for a year. What would you say we should take away from this so far? What are the big ideas that are kind of on your mind in the coming year? I think we'll have a good idea this year of really how long this war is going to last. You know, Putin in his kind of New Year speech to Russian people seemed to be preparing his public for a long fight. Initially, it was, this is all going to

get wrapped up within a week. And now it's the message, the way it came across to me was, we need to be patient, but we can outlast them. And, you know, Russia has this kind of more resources, more everything, and Ukraine can't win a war of attrition. You know, the big question for Ukraine then becomes, can you sell the urgency to Western partners to give you everything you need to win this year? Because Ukraine also knows it can't win a war of attrition. And so I think this is the year when Western countries, you know, might start to feel some fatigue and lose some patience, because Russia doesn't seem to be giving up on its maximalist goals, a lot of things could be decided where if Ukraine can't make all of the gains it possibly wants by the end of the year,

then there might be some more pressure for them to kind of sit down at the negotiating table. And I think Ukraine then says back to the West, well, then help us kind of finish it up this year. It will become clear exactly how long this war will go, because both sides are going to face like quite a deterioration of their forces. And if it's a war that lasts years, you're going to start to see kind of a freeze in the battlefield after this year. Today's episode was produced by Victoria Chamberlain and edited by Matthew Collette. It was engineered by Paul Robert Mouncey and fact-checked by Matthew Collette. Truly a Matthew of all trades Mouncey and fact-checked by Matthew Collette.

Truly a Matthew of all trades. I'm Noelle King. It's Today Explained. Thank you.