No NATO trainers in Ukraine -

No NATO trainers in Ukraine - micheletkearney@gmail.com - Gmail Why Washington must reject a proposed NATO intervention in Ukraine, networks in the Pacific, deterrence against non-state groups, and more. HARD PASS Do not send NATO trainers to Ukraine French soldiers participate in infantry training during Exercise Dragon 24 in Bemowo Piskie, Poland. Photo: NATO Ukraine's defense against Russia is not going well. The country "is more vulnerable than at any time since the first harrowing weeks of the 2022 invasion, Ukrainian soldiers and commanders from a range of brigades" told The New York Times in an article published last week. And a Washington Post report indicates Russian forces have recently seized "more land than Ukraine liberated in [its] 2023 counteroffensive" and "are straining Ukraine's military over a broad geographic area." This is grim news for anyone sympathetic to the Ukrainian people's remarkable fight against Moscow's aggression. But it is not news that justifies the incredibly dangerous and absolutely wrongheaded proposal, also covered by the Times, of sending NATO forces to Ukraine. Key details from the NYT report The gist: "NATO allies are inching closer to sending troops into Ukraine to train Ukrainian forces, a move that would be another blurring of a previous red line and could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war." The likelihood: "So far the United States has said no, but Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Thursday that a NATO deployment of trainers appeared inevitable. "We'll get there eventually, over time,' he said." The risk: "[A]n effort inside Ukraine would put 'a bunch of NATO trainers at risk' [Gen. Brown said] and would most likely mean deciding whether to use precious air defenses to protect the trainers instead of critical Ukrainian infrastructure near the battlefield." The (lack of) reward: "American and allied training has not always been successful. […] Ukrainians are facing a battlefield far different and more intense than what American forces have fought on in recent years." The right choice (so far): "The White House has been adamant that it will not put American troops, including trainers, on the ground in Ukraine, a position that an administration official reiterated on Thursday. The administration has also urged NATO allies not to send their troops." [NYT / Helene Cooper et al.] A colossal strategic mistake The NYT report said that as "part of NATO, the United States could be obligated under the alliance's treaty to aid in the defense of any attack on the trainers, potentially dragging America into the war." This is not correct per the letter of the NATO treaty: As John Allen Gay of John Quincy Adams Society noted, an attack on these troops within the territory of a third country (i.e. Ukraine) wouldn't trigger Article 5. (X) But in practice, if not on paper, that could easily be a distinction without a difference: If U.S. troops or those of our NATO allies—especially close, crucial allies like the U.K., Germany, or France—were killed by Russian forces in Ukraine, whether Article 5 is technically triggered could well prove irrelevant. It is difficult to imagine a deliberate (and perhaps even an accidental) Russian attack on NATO troops going without retaliation—and potentially escalating from there. Leaders of any country with soldiers dead at Russian hands would find themselves in a very difficult political position if their public response rests on explaining the details of NATO rules. Washington's task is twofold Continue to categorically reject this proposal. It is foolhardy and shortsighted in the extreme, and it will gravely undermine American security. Make inescapably clear that there is no U.S. backstop here if other NATO allies put their troops in Ukraine. The U.S. cannot risk great power conflict with Russia over another country's gross recklessness, even if that country is an ally.