If anyone here has the 'real deal' inside-track on the most private internal thoughts of the respective authorities, sure as dammit they oughtn't to be blabbing about it here. But some people have good reasons to believe that they have a competent 'armchair' interpretation, and I don't find it impossible to believe that different people with differing sets of expert areas of knowledge can convince themselves of wildly different "logical interpretations". And perhaps convince others.
My viewpoint (deep within the cushions of that armchair, more flavoured by cod-psychology than military experience in any theatre of war bigger than a gaming table) is:
1) Ask for a horse, and perhaps you'll actually get the pony you actually would have been happy with,
2) Even if tanks aren't useful (or in masses enough) for direct major front-line use, their presence (or potential presence) changes the way both your and their forces can be disposed, and can definitely get other AFVs out of roles that they are less suited for than for tanks and doing what they are intended to do,
3) A political lever, whether you get them or not, as a bandwagon/guilt-trip thing, (c.f. earlier calls for air-cover, etc)
4) It makes good copy to be righteously asking for them, even better if you get them (but be wary of whenever you lose them)
5) Carefully handled, a good morale boost (directly or indirectly).
But I bet the true requirements have a lot more in-depth subtleties and less wild guessing/osmotic absorption than my own attempt. I think the tanks could(/should) be actually useful as actual tanks (modern and updated Western bells and whistles being a definite boon over their limited abilities to upgrade the inherited and buffed Soviet-era stock). Beyond that, there's certainly other useful psychology to the whole public request. The guy who is asking has a background in audience-facing situations, reading the room, and I don't think that's an insignificant aspect to it.
Time will tell how it unfolds, but that's time for you...