- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or # to comment.
Putin is making his move. Russia is breaking a treaty, invading a sovereign country and trying to destabilize several countries through psyops. Those sitting on the fence will wind up under his boot.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been calling this out for years. Maybe it’s time we start listening to them and let them take the lead.
Seems like Putin made a really good investment with funneling money into some Republican politicians’ pockets, the delay in the US funding might actually turn the war in his favor. I’m disgusted by the traitors in the West cheering for Russia, the literal evil empire from the pages of a comic book, trying destroy our way of life in Europe.
Yeah, it’s fucking wild… Trump is straight up a Russian asset as well. If he wins in November we could see radical failures all over the world.
About a year overdue
UK SAS that volunteered in Ukraine was advocating for this from the start.
Red line is funny. We signed the Budapest accords back in the 80s. We are just in denial about it.
Care to elaborate? Who is violating the Budapest
accordsmemorandum in your view?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.
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.
Sorry, 90s. I stand happily corrected.
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.
The accords simply allowed the actions of sanctions as response to violations. It was a useless document with toothless consequences.
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.
It really is a hilariously excellent litmus test to check for vatniks. It’s pretty funny how consistently it works as a honeypot.
95% of people who cite the Budapest Memorandum have no idea what it actually says.
Well, some of them do, but are trying to actively misinform others on the topic.
deleted by creator
They haven’t been training Ukrainian troops in-country since the start of the full-scale invasion. The US in particular pulled all their troops out about 10 days before Russia invaded.
👆 Yup
Tbh I’d like it if NATO could just say “right so we’re taking over Ukraine’s IADS and augmenting it with our own stuff”.
I dont think a bunch of shoes are gonna help things.
Fuck that, call that shit stains bluff and put NATO boots on the ground and turn russias military into dust particles. The only way to stop the new nazis is to remove every semblance of them.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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 part of NATO, the United States would be obligated under the alliance’s treaty to aid in the defense of any attack on the trainers, potentially dragging America into the war.
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.
Other NATO allies, including Britain, Germany and France, are working to base defense contractors in Ukraine to help build and repair weapons systems closer to the combat zone — what military officials have described as a “fix it forward” approach.
“There is an element of ally malpractice in the fact that we’re providing masses of Western equipment to Ukraine, but not giving them the resources to sustain it,” said Alexander S. Vindman, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a Ukrainian-born American combat veteran.
The original article contains 947 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
Oh great you fuckers are on Lemmy now too?
Could you do us a favor and at least fight against the Tankies so we don’t have to deal with either of you? Or perhaps you are a Tankie, and have unironically becomes indistinguishable from far right trash.
Sure, NATO advisors will be training 60-year-old Ukrainians to fight. They need the draft age to go down to 14 years old.
What do you suggest as an alternative? Allow Russia to annex Ukraine?
Do what the article says, Make like Russia in LDNR and send in “volunteers on leave” to help out the Ukrainians. The breakaway republics would never have held out this long without Russian volunteers.
Russia does not want to annex Ukraine, and it is doing so anyway, so that is irrelevant. It is a demilitarizing process. The nuance is key. Since NATO is a persistent threat that likes to test boundaries, they will annex is the Russian-speaking oblast of Ukraine or make them their own republics. Ukraine ideally was supposed to be a neutral buffer zone between NATO and Russia. There is no trust for that, so the Russian elites decided that the next best thing is to invade Ukraine in order to eliminate its war fighting capability. Ukraine conflict made the Russian military stronger and made the Ukrainian army much weaker. The issue is trust between NATO and Russia. If NATO and the EU left Ukraine as a non-aligned, neutral country, the Russians would have not invaded. There is a reason why the Russians did what they did, not because they want to, but for future survival. The decision to invade Ukraine did not come easy. Israel on the other hand chooses to bomb Gaza and Hamas is nowhere near the threat that NATO is to Russia, in the eyes of the Russians.
The problem with this, is that NATO is a defensive treaty, that requires countries to ask to join.
So this characterization of Russian foreign policy is, if true, just stupid. So fucking STUPID.
Quick edit to add: I’m not necessarily calling your assessment of Russian foreign policy stupid. I’m calling this foreign policy justification stupid.
No, the assessment is stupid as well. It’s just parroting propaganda, while ignoring the mountains of information (in some cases literally officially published by the Kremlin, like Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”) that Russian leadership doesn’t even consider Ukraine to be a real country and very much does want to annex it because it is “Russian”.
And they have annexed part of it already. That’s the stupidest part of that person’s comment. You can’t say Russia doesn’t want to annex Ukraine when they’ve already done so for territory they control.
Russia does not want to annex Ukraine
Then it’s weird that they already annexed part of it.
In 2014.
Ukraine conflict made the Russian military stronger
Lol. Lmao, even. 2nd victory day parade in a row featuring a single ancient tank. This time it wasn’t even a Russian tank. They’re sending mothballed Soviet stock to toss turrets at the front. They’re building sheds around vehicles because they can’t stop drones. They’re still using Soviet style meat assaults with minimally trained conscripts and suffering hundreds of casualties daily. They’re so short of or stingy with armor, troops on the front use unarmored Chinese golf carts to move around. Ukraine is striking Russian soil with homemade drone bombs. Ukraine is destroying aircraft on the ground. Ukraine has struck several training areas and large gatherings of troops because your officers STILL don’t understand why massing within range of HIMARS is a fucking stupid idea. You’ve lost a quarter of your fleet to a country with no navy. Your pmc was so mistreated and mismanaged they fucking marched on Moscow. Russia still can’t maintain air presence without getting shot down. Do you even have usable A-50s left? The war was supposed to be over in 3 days, vatnik. Why is it 2 years later? Russia used to be thought of as the second strongest military in the world. Why is it currently the second strongest military in Russia?
Edit: WHY DO THINGS KEEP EXPLODING IN RUSSIA? I’M SO CONFUSED HELP ME IVAN
What the actual fuck are you talking about. Strong “you should have complied” energy.
If NATO and the EU left Ukraine as a non-aligned, neutral country, the Russians would have not invaded.
Too bad it isn’t NATO, the EU, or Russia’s decision who Ukraine is aligned to and who they favor. Get your shitty imperialism out of here. Ukraine can do what Ukraine wants to do and you just have to deal with it.
Russia screeched that an old colony would dare leave their sphere of influence and invaded. And in the process, they exposed themselves as a global laughingstock. Their military is pathetic and weak, just like their leader – a projection of strength hiding a feeble fool.
It doesn’t matter if the Russian military has even slightly improved in one aspect – which I highly doubt – because their ability to project military might is gone. No one will take their threats or military seriously anymore. Everyone knows they’re impotent.
