The move could draw the United States and Europe more directly into the war. The Biden administration continues to say there will be no American troops on the ground.

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.

Ukraine’s manpower shortage has reached a critical point, and its position on the battlefield in recent weeks has seriously worsened as Russia has accelerated its advances to take advantage of delays in shipments of American weapons. As a result, Ukrainian officials have asked their American and NATO counterparts to help train 150,000 new recruits closer to the front line for faster deployment.

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.

MBFC
Archive

  • @bassomitronEnglish
    28•6 months ago

    That would be Russia, is my guess:

    The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, “except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

    • @[email protected]English
      3•6 months ago

      The most frightening implication of the total abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum is that it’s basically entirely killed the idea of nuclear non-proliferation due to two huge points:

      • Going forward, nobody is going to believe any “guarantees of territorial integrity and sovereignty” underwritten by Russia (obviously), the US, or the UK, in the context of a one-time exchange for nuclear disarmament
      • The obvious corollary to the total abrogation of the Budapest Memorandum by the parties underwriting said sovereignty and security is that nuclear weapons have essentially been confirmed as the absolute final word in guaranteeing a country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Nobody will invade your country if one of the consequences is “we will start glassing your cities”. We are going to see a HUGE resurgence in nuclear weapon development programs worldwide in the coming decades as a direct result of this myopic idiocy.
    • @ghostdoggtvEnglish
      3•6 months ago

      Sorry, 90s. I stand happily corrected.

    • @[email protected]English
      1•6 months ago

      Ok wtf. How are you supposed to even enforce that, nevermind that there seems to be no enforcement mechanism for anything in the treaty, but economic coercion is just an inherent part of relations under capitalism.

    • @[email protected]English
      -17•6 months ago

      The accords simply allowed the actions of sanctions as response to violations. It was a useless document with toothless consequences.

      • @[email protected]English
        26•6 months ago

        The reason I ask is it’s common Russian disinformation to claim US or NATO violated this agreement; justifying the Russian federations invasion of Ukraine.

        • @[email protected]English
          12•6 months ago

          It really is a hilariously excellent litmus test to check for vatniks. It’s pretty funny how consistently it works as a honeypot.