The Tribune

AS the first anniversary approaches of the worst conflagration on European soil since the Second World War, there has been widespread reporting in the international media this past week of plans by Western countries to supply tanks to Ukraine. With differing numbers being bandied about, the latest information from Kyiv’s ambassador to France is that “numerous countries have officially confirmed their agreement to deliver 321 tanks (to Ukraine)”.

 Of these, the US pledged last week to provide 31 M1 Abrams tanks while the UK earlier agreed to send 14 of its Challenger 2s; and, after months of deliberation and negotiations with its NATO partners, Germany has also decided to supply its Leopard 2 tanks. Other European countries, notably Poland but also France, Spain, Norway and the Netherlands – as well as Canada -- are also considering how to participate in this. The West appears to be seeking to bolster Ukraine’s Soviet-era tanks with more sophisticated and effective ones to increase its attacking options as it gears up for an early spring offensive.

 To the layman, the big issue is how effective all this is likely to be in helping Ukraine to achieve its strategic objective of forcing Russian forces out of its territory entirely – including from Crimea and the Russian-occupied areas in the east - while the other main concern internationally will be whether this escalation by the West could bring about new retaliation from Russia including the use of nuclear weapons.

 Military experts have said that tanks represent the most powerful offensive weapon provided so far to Ukraine. Heavy modern weaponry has been pouring into the country, but could tanks now be a game changer? The answer by the experts seems to be ‘probably’ but not ‘instantly’, partly because the tanks themselves will be delivered at varying times.

 In the face of Russian military might and numerical advantage, the tenacity, bravery and patriotism of the Ukrainian armed forces – assisted by NATO weapons and military equipment, especially the American HIMARS rocket system which is said to have been vital - has enabled the country to survive so far; and, most importantly, the unity and resolve of the West in providing such support has not weakened. The general view of the analysts is that the supply of tanks could tip the balance in Ukraine’s favour.

 Meanwhile, the received wisdom in some NATO capitals appears to be that Moscow’s constant threats to resort to nuclear weapons are designed to intimidate the Western alliance. But they are considered to be hollow and largely just rhetoric because of Putin’s fundamental fear of mutual destruction following massive retaliation by the West. Some commentators suggest the public needs to see a detailed analysis of the official assessment of all this in light of statements like the one made recently by the Russian ambassador to Germany who warned that the “dangerous decision” about tanks “takes the conflict to a new level of confrontation”. There have also been reports of Russia warning that the supply of tanks is “evidence of growing direct involvement of US and Western allies in war”, and that instead of “pumping weapons” into Ukraine the US could be helping to work towards a ceasefire and peace negotiations – even though, of course, this ignores the fact that responsibility for the conflict lies directly with Russia because of its invasion in the first place.

Many believe that the public needs reassurance that the balance between the undoubted need for continuing military support and the danger of escalating the conflict by supplying tanks has been adequately considered and weighed – and that the dangers of this escalation will not, in the best judgment of Western leaders, lead to wider warfare.

Such has been the drive for NATO unity over the issue of tanks, it has been surprising how commentators in the media have apparently ignored the sensitivities of German involvement. They seem to have been reluctant to examine properly the reasons why the country has been dragging its feet over agreeing to supply its own Leopard 2s for use in Ukraine while it has been pressed from all sides, not least by the US, to co-operate.

Germany was said to have refused initially to contribute weapons to Ukraine amid fears of retaliation and because of its dependence on Russian gas. But, as it has reduced substantially its use of this imported gas, it has increased its supply of arms to help Ukraine defend itself. Reportedly, a majority in Germany fear that military assistance to it risks provoking war with Russia that could include the use of nuclear weapons. But it is now clear that Russia is in effect not just fighting Ukraine but much of the civilised western world. In view of its role as Europe’s largest economy and, in effect, paymaster of the European Union and member of NATO - as well as producing and exporting the vast majority of heavy tanks in Europe - Germany cannot now escape its responsibility to play a leading role in the Ukraine crisis. However, as other countries continue to press for further action, its concerns about escalation through supplying tanks are understandable given the weight of history involving war guilt that is felt particularly by modern-day German leaders. So surely nobody should be surprised at the German Chancellor’s refusal to go it alone or become the central facilitator in supplying such battle tanks.

This is an important subject which, depending on developments, might be worth examining further next week.

What motivates politicians?

In writing last week about the sudden resignation of Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister of New Zealand, I suggested it might be interesting to look at what inspires people to seek political office.

It is the case, of course, that some are driven to participate in politics by ideas about a better way to organise society, by faith in certain values or ideals and an irresistible desire or even compulsion to fight for these and turn them in to reality. Often it can simply be a matter of being filled with benevolence towards one’s fellow human beings and a belief that one can do some good, with altruism and a desire to serve one’s community while helping to improve the lives of others and promoting some cause or interest. Or is it for reasons of status and vanity to exercise power over others and impose one’s will and ideas, and thereby make oneself feel important in accordance with the natural longing people have for what philosophers call self-affirmation and a need to remind others of the significance of one’s existence? Or, again, is it for cynical and practical reasons of greed to help one’s own business in some way and an opportunity to make some money?

Politics is invariably about a competition for power and resources in order to solve social problems for the common good, get things done on behalf of a community, protect the environment and encourage enterprise or improve public services. It means representing hundreds or thousands of constituents in a legislative body where you contribute to the passing of laws that affect everyone else or in high government office where decisions are made about the running of the whole country; and above all it affirms the identity and existence of those exercising it who are thereby leaving a mark on the world around them. There are also the perks of high office which those concerned have every right to enjoy.

Some people want political power because they think they know best and want to dominate and establish maximum control over others. But that can develop into tyranny and dictatorship and often involves force – as China’s first communist leader, Chairman Mao Tse-tung, is reputed to have said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.

All political power gives the holders an opportunity to confirm, day in and day out, their own existence and this satisfies the desire to be important and appreciated which, as Dale Carnegie wrote in his seminal book “How to Win Friends and Influence People”, is the deepest urge in human nature. However, no politician will ever admit to running for office only because of a desire to assert their own importance. Instead, they will claim it is their sense of responsibility towards the community that compels them to take on the burden of high office. Of course, no one suggests that the need for self-affirmation is essentially reprehensible since most human beings long for recognition and approbation. But the cynics maintain that that is invariably a stronger motivation than a commitment to public service.

None of this is to belittle the genuine committed politician who has built a reputation as a caring and dedicated constituency “servant of the people”, committed to helping sort out the problems of individuals. But it is well understood in political circles that success requires a desire for power and influence and this in turn needs a ruthless approach to acting in one’s self-interest that may include excessive ambition.

It is said that the art of politics is to avoid making enemies and to recognize the importance of conciliating opponents on non-essential issues in order to get consent and co-operation on major ones. In her book “The March of Folly” which I wrote about last month, the American author Barbara Tuchman commented that the lure of political office and power can far too often stultify a better performance of government because legislators always have an eye on re-election. People disagree about what is good for society, so politics involves conflict, and that requires compromise. Thus, all too often, their guiding principle is to please as many and offend as few as possible rather than formulate policy according to their best judgment after objective analysis of a particular issue.

That lure of political power is all too real and few will leave high office prematurely unless they are forced out. In the case of Jacinda Ardern, who knows? But perhaps the “real” reasons for her departure will eventually emerge.

Supremacy of Parliament

Last Friday was International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It commemorates the killing of six million Jews and millions of others by Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. In the UK, January 27 is a national commemoration day dedicated to the same remembrance.

In reading reports about this, I found it interesting to discover that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has now promised a new law which will allow a Holocaust memorial centre to be built next to Parliament.

He told MPs that, after campaigners had won a legal battle in the High Court to overturn planning permission for this new national memorial, the government would legislate to ensure it was built.

The campaigners had earlier challenged planning permission in the High Court on the grounds that, in accordance with legislation dating back to 1900, the land for the proposed memorial and learning centre must be used exclusively as a public park.

The UK government has said it is committed to building the memorial next to Parliament as a reflection of the project’s national significance.

In a huge and heavily populated city like London, it is important that the laws which stop public parks from being built on should be respected, and the courts provide protection for that through their interpretation of the law. But, in any dispute, the ultimate authority must rest with Parliament as the elected representatives of the people.

In this case, the overall balanced view of the project – taking into account all relevant considerations including its size – seems to be that it should proceed.

To my eye, this is another example of the supremacy of parliamentary sovereignty in Britain. The government is prepared to try to change the law to ensure this project should happen – and the courts cannot overrule legislation.