Follow us on social

google cta
Nato-scaled

'Disaster' if US trainers go to Ukraine without a plan with Russia

Gen. Charles Q. Brown said Washington could send troops 'eventually'

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that NATO “trainers” will eventually be sent to Ukraine, breaking one of the few remaining red lines preventing the Ukraine war from erupting into a direct conflict between Russia and the West.

“We’ll get there eventually, over time,” said Brown, according to The New York Times, adding that sending them now would put “a bunch of NATO trainers at risk.”

Brown’s comments tacitly concede two realities that Western officials have been loath to acknowledge: the Ukrainian war effort is slowly crumbling and cannot be sustained without a steady escalation of Western involvement.

Yet there is a third factor that should be of serious concern to U.S. and European leaders: sending NATO personnel into Ukraine absent some kind of larger, explicit understanding with Moscow is highly likely to embroil NATO states, including the U.S, in a shooting war with Russian forces.

The Kremlin may very well be open to some kind of formal settlement that establishes lines of demarcation in Ukraine and sanctions the presence of Western military personnel in parts of the country, but that framework is not what’s being proposed here. Absent an explicit agreement with the West over the scope and limits of NATO’s military presence in Ukraine, the Kremlin would likely view the initial wave of NATO trainers as a trial balloon to gauge Russia’s reaction to greater and more direct Western involvement in Ukraine.

Thus, there is a high degree of probability that Moscow would conclude it needs to make a point of targeting these trainers as vigorously as possible to dissuade the prospect of larger-scale NATO military intervention.

Brown reportedly acknowledged that sending these personnel in now would put “a bunch of NATO trainers at risk,” but it is not clear what exactly about the battlefield dynamics in Ukraine leads him to conclude that this scheme would be safer to execute in the future.

This proposal, without a larger strategy for ending rather than escalating the war, is a recipe for disaster. It would not bring Ukraine closer to achieving anything that can meaningfully be considered as victory over Russia, but it would bring NATO and Russia within a hair’s breadth of open conflict — something that all Western leaders should be seeking to avoid.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)
Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Europe whistles past the Venezuelan graveyard
Top image credit: Chisinau, Moldova - April 24, 2025: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas during press conference with Moldovan President Maia Sandu (not seen) in Chisinau. Dan Morar via shutterstock.com

Europe whistles past the Venezuelan graveyard

Europe

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the EU high representative for foreign affairs Kaja Kallas said that “sovereignty, territorial integrity and discrediting aggression as a tool of statecraft are crucial principles that must be upheld in case of Ukraine and globally.”

These were not mere words. The EU has adopted no less than 19 packages of sanctions against the aggressor — Russia — and allocated almost $200 billion in aid since 2022.

keep readingShow less
Trump Delcy Rodriguez
Top image credit: lev radin and Joshua Sukoff via shutterstock.com

'Running Venezuela'? Hegemony is one thing, dominance is another.

Latin America

The U.S. bombing of Caracas, a capital of three million people, of the port of La Guaira, as well as other targets in the states of Miranda and Aragua, together with the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, represents a further escalation in the war-like operations that the United States has conducted over the past five months against the land of the Liberator, Simon Bolivar.

It is also the first U.S. military attack on the South American mainland in 200 years. Such attacks have been common in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean (most recently in Panama in 1989), but had never taken place in South America. A threshold has been crossed, and the consequences are unpredictable.

keep readingShow less
Cuba Miami Dade Florida
Top image credit: MIAMI, FL, UNITED STATES - JULY 13, 2021: Cubans protesters shut down part of the Palmetto Expressway as they show their support for the people in Cuba. Fernando Medina via shutterstock.com

South Florida: When local politics become rogue US foreign policy

Latin America

The passions of exile politics have long shaped South Florida. However, when local officials attempt to translate those passions into foreign policy, the result is not principled leadership — it is dangerous government overreach with significant national implications.

We see that in U.S. Cuba policy, and more urgently today, in Saturday's "take over" of Venezuela.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.