{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/60518a52f69aa815d2dba41c/63d4655329aa49001114261e?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Rational Security: The “M1 Abrams Accords” Edition","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/60518a52f69aa815d2dba41c/show-cover.png?height=200","description":"<p>This week on <em>Rational Security</em>, Quinta and Scott were joined by special guest Michel Paradis to talk over the week's big national security news, including:</p><ul><li>“Don’t Tank my Chain.” Western allies of Ukraine have finally agreed to a way forward on&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/25/germany-leopard-tanks-abrams-ukraine/\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">providing the country with tanks</a>, an issue which has proven surprisingly contentious in recent weeks. Germany will now allow its Leopard tanks to be used in the near-term while the United States will send Ukraine a series of M1 Abrams in the future, meeting the German demand for a matched U.S. contribution. Why was this so important to Germany? And what does it tell us about the broader state of the war?</li><li>“Slight of the Valkyries.” The U.S. Treasury Department has&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-plans-impose-new-sanctions-next-week-against-russias-wagner-private-military-2023-01-20/\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">slapped new sanctions</a>&nbsp;on the Russian mercenary group, the Wagner Group, labeling them a Transnational Criminal Organization (“TCO”)—even as U.S. officials continue to resist calls to designate them a terrorist organization. What explains this reticence? Is it warranted?</li><li>“Empire State of Mind.” For the first time, the New York City district attorney is&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/nyregion/nypd-terror-law-abdullah-el-faisal.html\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">trying someone under state criminal laws barring material support for terrorism</a>&nbsp;that the state adopted following the September 11 attacks—even though the criminal suspect was never present in New York, but merely knew his actions would have repercussions there. Is this a sensible move? Or is there reason for pause?&nbsp;</li></ul><p><br></p>","author_name":"The Lawfare Institute"}