Kallas argued that the fears of NATO allies about sending troops to Ukraine to train soldiers drawing them into a war with Russia are unfounded. She mentioned that some NATO member states are discussing the possibility of sending military instructors or contractors to Ukraine to train troops and assist with equipment repairs. Kyiv has requested assistance from the U.S. and other NATO countries to train 150,000 soldiers closer to the front lines. Kallas emphasized that it is essential to train Ukrainian troops on their own territory and that if any personnel were to be hurt, it would not automatically trigger NATO’s Article 5 on mutual defense. Macron’s comments in February sparked the debate about the potential presence of NATO troops in Ukraine, but many countries have not ruled out sending troops for non-combat missions such as training the Ukrainian military.
Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur stated on May 14 that the concept of sending Western troops to Ukraine has not progressed in Estonia or at the EU level due to a lack of clear understanding among allies of the potential outcomes. Macron mentioned that he would consider sending troops to Ukraine in the event of a Russian breakthrough and a request from Ukraine. However, he clarified that such conditions did not currently exist. The U.S. and multiple European allies, along with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, have distanced themselves from Macron’s statement. While some countries have not ruled out the possibility of sending troops for non-combat missions, there is no clear consensus regarding this among NATO allies.
Kallas noted that some countries are already training soldiers on the ground in Ukraine at their own risk. She believes that assisting in the training of Ukrainian troops on their own territory, rather than elsewhere in Europe, will not escalate the war with Russia. Kallas dismissed the idea that if training personnel were to be hurt, those who sent them would immediately invoke Article 5 of mutual defense and retaliate against Russia. The debate surrounding the potential presence of NATO troops in Ukraine has been ongoing since Macron’s comments in February. Despite some countries considering sending troops for non-combat missions, there is no unanimous agreement among NATO allies on this matter.
The discussions about sending military instructors or contractors to Ukraine to train troops and assist with equipment repairs have raised concerns among NATO allies about being drawn into a conflict with Russia. Kallas maintained that these fears are not well-founded and emphasized the importance of training Ukrainian troops on their own territory rather than in Europe. She pointed out that if any training personnel were to be harmed, it would not automatically trigger NATO’s mutual defense clause. Macron’s suggestion of sending troops to Ukraine in certain conditions has not been widely supported by other NATO allies, and the idea has not advanced at the EU level. The debate around the potential presence of NATO troops in Ukraine remains ongoing, with differing opinions among member states.
In conclusion, the issue of sending NATO troops to Ukraine for training purposes remains a topic of debate among member states. While some countries are considering the possibility of sending troops for non-combat missions, others are more cautious due to concerns about being drawn into a conflict with Russia. Kallas emphasized the importance of training Ukrainian soldiers on their own territory and highlighted the lack of consensus among NATO allies on this matter. The discussions sparked by Macron’s comments in February have not led to concrete action, and the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine has not made progress. As the situation continues to evolve, it remains to be seen how NATO will navigate its involvement in Ukraine and respond to the ongoing conflict in the region.
The discussions about sending military instructors or contractors to Ukraine to train troops and assist with equipment repairs have raised concerns among NATO allies about being drawn into a conflict with Russia
Isn’t NATO already in a de facto conflict with Russia? Almost all countries in the alliance have placed sanctions on it and are openly hostile towards Putin’s regime except maybe Turkey. Also, Russia has been unable to push forward the front line in the past year or so, is NATO really worried that they have the capability to open another front line?
Russia doesn’t have to open a new front. Nukes on Berlin, Paris, and Washington would do it.
That’s an empty threat. Maybe it wasn’t empty when there was some ideology backing the threat like in the 60s, but there’s no way that the Russian oligarchy would accept such an outcome given the luxury they hope to live in.
There isn’t much evidence that the oligarchs have any influence.
As someone who lived through it, Mutual Assured Destruction was an insane policy in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. It may have been the only one available, but it was insane. It’s no better now.
As somebody else who lived through part of it, closer to the side that was on the “losing side of history”, I think that it’s much more difficult to get someone to push the required buttons without the state indoctrination apparatus as it was in USSR. Everybody hesitated back then, I think it’s highly unlikely they won’t now.
deleted by creator
Russia would not survive that, and Putin knows that. Germany, France and the US maybe would, like Japan did, at least if we don’t wipe out the whole biosphere, but Russia wouldn’t.
Why do you say that? They have a much larger land mass and more spread out population, which seems to argue that they are in a more survivable position.
I’m not talking about the population, but the government, the state, the idea of Russia.
Are not all of those things inextricably tied to the people?
There’s no Russia without Moscow and St. Petersburg. Sure, there’s still Russian-speaking people, but no state. No elite, no central power, and as all power is central in Russia that means none at all. It’d be a free-for-all.
Even if just Putin disappeared there’d be a power vacuum. If every Russian city and many, many towns were permanently destroyed, which is what would happen, Russia would only exist in the history books.
If the West keeps escalating, at some point Russia has to respond to not loose credibility. The fact that western politicians are convinced they are morally right seems to blind them to this. Russia is capable of doing real damage and has thus far threatened but also shown restraint, clearly they do not want to escalate this beyond Ukraine. Nobody, not the West, not Ukraine, and not Russia, has an interest in WW3 but every day we seem to blindly walk closer and closer. Making it all the more astonishing that not more mainstream voices confront the harsh realpolitik of the current situation.
Yes bombing all those hospitals and schools is real restrain on Russia’s part.
Making emotional appeals on how evil the enemy is, is not a great way to deescalate a situation. And if you want to keep more hospitals standing, peace is your best hope. We can not control what Russia does, nor can you defeat a nuclear power, we can only negotiate and hope to get back to a point where both Russia and Europe had their security concerns met and there was no war in Ukraine.
As long as Russia hasn’t left Ukraine, there is no such thing as security for Europe.
But they are not gonna leave, and we can’t make them without risking worse (for Ukraine and the world at large).
And of course we can’t force Ukraine to stop resisting (nor should we, it is their right), but I have the impression the west does not want this to end (regardless of the cost of Ukrainian lives), and sees this as an opportunity to weaken Russia.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The world of geopolitics is a world without police, so I agree that the invasion is a war crime, but in practice there is not much we can do that doesn’t make the situation worse.
In my opinion the best we can hope for is peace by means of a balance of power.
The lack of credible enforcement of international law is made very clear by the Iraq war, a war of aggression where the perpetrators were never held to account because the US was powerful enough to prevent that.
I don’t think it’s morally bad to be pragmatic in that sense, if trying to punish Russia leads to nuclear annihilation.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“Stop trying harder to prevent our invasion!”
Fuck along.
I’m not saying Ukraine doesn’t have the right to defend itself, but the west is not Ukraine and has a broader responsibility (and seems currently mostly concerned with destabilizing Russia regardless of the cost of Ukrainian lives).
Russia made clear that it had the intent and means to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, and yet the US kept promising. This was dangerous and escalatory, the West knew this (this is also the reason why France and Germany were originally against it when the US proposed this) and yet they kept promising. Even after Russia annexed Crimea and started fighting Ukraine in the east the US kept promising NATO, de facto forcing Russia to keep fighting. Even when Russia made it 100% explicit and clear, they would not take NATO of the table.
This war was preventable, and further conflict is still preventable. But the US has shown that apparently Ukrainian lives are not worth a lot compared to their geo-strategic plans.
And of course Russia doesn’t and didn’t have the right to invade Ukraine, but if the US are truly ‘the good guys’ then it’s time to act that way and find a peaceful solution (given the situation at hand).
And finally, while it’s up to Ukrainians to decide in what kind of country they want to live, I can imagine they would rather live in a neutral country than a destroyed one.
This is literally “Look what you made me do!” as geopolitical apologism.
Why are you taking Russia at its word?
and seems currently mostly concerned with destabilizing Russia regardless of the cost of Ukrainian lives
More like the opposite. Noone but the Chinese would benefit from Russia breaking up, at least an uncontrolled breakup, that is. Even Ukraine would be in a shitty position because regional instability and ass-long border.
If the West keeps escalating, at some point Russia has to respond to not loose credibility.
Russia already lost all its credibility, after they sign the Bubapest memorandum, they breach it and annexed Crimea. Then tried to annex the rest of Ukraine (or to put one of its puppet) some years later. At this point everything Russia sign has less value than the paper used to write it.
You are right, nobody want WW3 but it is not that because of this then Putin (or everyone else for that matter) could do whatever he want.
And every bit can be stopped by Putin just going home.