Australia's Abrams tanks reach Ukraine after nine months
Defence Minister Richard Marles said the tanks, first promised last October, would "make a significant contribution" to Ukraine's "ongoing fight against Russia's illegal and immoral invasion".
More than half of the 49 promised tanks have now reached the Ukrainian army, according to a statement from Mr Marles, with the remainder expected "in the coming months".
The lengthy delay was blown out by the need to gain Washington's approval to send the US-made tanks to a third country, and what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described earlier this year as "logistics challenges".
In May, when the ships were first being loaded, a US official told the ABC of American frustration about the "complicated" undertaking to send tanks that the Ukrainians would find "difficult to sustain" once in their possession.
An Australian official told the ABC in April there was "doubt if the Ukrainians actually want these vehicles", which had never seen combat and were being replaced, and which could be vulnerable to drones given their weak roofs.
But the tanks were requested by Ukraine, and the gift has been welcomed publicly by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ambassador to Australia Vasyl Myroshnychenko.
"These modified M1A1 Abrams tanks will deliver more firepower and more mobility to the Ukrainian Armed Forces," Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said.
"They meet a direct request from the Ukrainian government and form part of Australia's unwavering commitment to protect the global rules-based order."
The 49 tanks come from a fleet of 59 originally purchased in 2007. They are being replaced by the M1A2 model.
They are valued at $245 million, part of a total of $1.5 billion in Australian assistance to Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
19 minutes ago
- ABC News
Why Mark Latham is likely to remain in NSW parliament
As politicians call for Mark Latham's conduct in parliament to be investigated by the privileges committee, a top constitutional lawyer says it would be "very, very difficult" to have him expelled even if the allegations were proven. It follows media reports he allegedly took photos of female colleagues speaking in parliament and made disparaging comments about them in private messages and participated in a consensual sex video in his office. Mr Latham has denied any wrongdoing. In posts on X, Mr Latham said the media had used his messages out of context, cherry-picking and missing in-jokes. Of the alleged sex video, Mr Latham has repeatedly said no media claimed to have seen the alleged tape and there was "no suggestion of any law or rule broken". NSW Premier Chris Minns said on Thursday if proved true, Mr Latham's alleged behaviour in the parliamentary chamber "almost certainly" broke standing orders. Mr Minns said the privileges committee should investigate the allegations and "make a decision about sanctioning him". in an interview with 2SM, Mr Latham said he had not breached any standing order of NSW parliament. The leader of government in the upper house, Penny Sharpe, has also said she would move a motion to refer Mr Latham to the privileges committee for allegedly "disclosing authorised information" after he used parliamentary privilege to allegedly reveal confidential information from a psychologist's report prepared for civil proceedings brought by MP Alex Greenwich. Mr Latham said his remarks were not based on confidential information. He asked for a fair go from voters who said he should leave parliament. "They've got a rigorous process there about behaviour inside the parliament, a complaints officer, a committee of woke people who monitor what you do in the building," he said. "I've never received notification of any complaint through that process. "So for any of you listeners saying kick him off, what happened to the principle of innocent and innocent until proven guilty?" Mr Latham's parliamentary term expires in 2031. University of Sydney professor of constitutional law Anne Twomey said NSW parliament had the power to expel MPs — unlike in federal parliament after such powers were abolished in 1987. But she added that in NSW it was "very, very hard to expel" an MP. Professor Twomey said an MP could face expulsion if they committed criminal offences or engaged in conduct that brings the house into disrepute; however, this has very rarely happened since the 1800s. "As a general principle, it only gets used when the person has had findings made against them," she said. Mr Latham is not accused of any criminal offences, and no inappropriate conduct has been proven. While Mr Minns said if the allegations against Mr Latham were proven "in a typical workplace, he'd be gone tomorrow", he acknowledged it was voters who elected him to parliament. Professor Twomey said the threshold for expulsion was very high, and there were many historic examples of MPs who had avoided expulsion threats. In 1997, NSW Labor MP Franca Arena faced a motion calling for her suspension until she apologised after using parliamentary privilege to allege a criminal conspiracy by certain politicians to cover up paedophilia, which a special commission concluded was false. She refused to apologise but read a statement of regret, which attracted enough support from enough Coalition and crossbench MPs to avoid suspension. Another ground for expulsion is bankruptcy. In Victoria, former state Liberal leader John Pesutto narrowly avoided bankruptcy and possible expulsion from parliament after he was able to secure a loan from the party to help cover a $2.3 million legal payout he owes MP Moira Deeming from a defamation case. Mr Latham was last year ordered to pay $140,000 in a defamation suit after making graphic, homophobic comments in a tweet about Mr Greenwich and has appealed. The extent of Mr Latham's financial resources and ability to pay is not clear. The NSW parliament also has powers to temporarily suspend MPs and in 2022 the then-Coalition government suspended two of its MPs. Professor Twomey said the power to expel or suspend MPs was problematic, as it could be used for political purposes. "I think the better answer would be maybe shorter terms for the Legislative Council so that the people in the end get to decide."
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Rudd ‘confident' on AUKUS review, rejects defence spending claims
Washington | Kevin Rudd believes issues raised by the Pentagon's review of the AUKUS submarine pact can be resolved, but refutes suggestions that Australia is not spending enough on defence. The former prime minister and now United States ambassador, who is under intense scrutiny amid strains in the Australia-US alliance, said the relationship had proved resilient through 15 prime ministers and presidents and would grow stronger under President Donald Trump.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Rudd sure US issues with sub contract will be resolved
Australia's ambassador to Washington, former prime minister Kevin Rudd, says his country is working with the Pentagon on the US Defense Department's review of the AUKUS submarine project and is confident that all issues raised will be resolved. Kevin Rudd made the comment at the Aspen Security Forum and stressed his close relationship with Elbridge Colby, the US undersecretary of defence for policy, who initiated the review, and the longstanding US-Australia defence alliance. "We're working with Bridge and the team on the AUKUS review ... and we are confident that we'll work our way through each and every one of the issues which he has raised in the context of this internal Defense Department review," Rudd said, referring to Colby. "Bridge has been around my place a lot of times, and so we have known each other for a long period of time, and that's why I'm confident, quite apart from the mature relationship within our two defence establishments ... that we'll work our way through this stuff." Rudd said the US-Australia alliance had endured through 15 presidents and 15 prime ministers from different parties. In 2023, the United States, Australia, and Britain unveiled details of the AUKUS plan to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines from the early 2030s, part of efforts to counter China's ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. It is Australia's biggest ever defence project. The Pentagon said in June it was reviewing AUKUS to ensure it was "aligned with the President's America First agenda," amid concerns about the ability of the US to meet its own submarine needs and whether Australia's vessels would be used in support of US policy in the future. On Sunday, Australia's Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy responded to a report that the Pentagon has pressed Australia to clarify what role it would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan by saying Australia would not commit troops in advance to any conflict. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has also rebuffed US requests to commit to lifting defence spending from two per cent to 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product, saying instead Australia would spend what was needed for its defence.
