“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.
Mark Episkopos is a Eurasia Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He is also an Adjunct Professor of History at Marymount University. Episkopos holds a PhD in history from American University and a masters degree in international affairs from Boston University.
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)
Following a reported push from the Biden administration in late 2024, Mike Waltz - President-elect Donald Trump’s NSA pick - is now advocating publicly that Ukraine lower its draft age to 18, “Their draft age right now is 26 years old, not 18 ... They could generate hundreds of thousands of new soldiers," he told ABC This Week on Sunday.
Ukraine needs to "be all in for democracy," said Waltz. However, any push to lower the draft age is unpopular in Ukraine. Al Jazeera interviewed Ukrainians to gauge the popularity of the war, and raised the question of lowering the draft age, which had been suggested by Biden officials in December. A 20-year-old service member named Vladislav said in an interview that lowering the draft age would be a “bad idea.”
“I would choose to be shot to death right here, in Kyiv instead of going to the frontline,” said a 17-year-old Ukrainian named Serhiy in these interviews. Serhiy’s mother shared her son’s opinion, as young people “aren’t developed mentally, they will jump on (enemy) weapons without thinking, without understanding.” Continuing with, “they don’t yet have a feeling of self-preservation, they are just flying into battle. This will be (the) destruction of the Ukrainian people.”
This idea that more young Ukrainians should be fighting may conflict with Trump’s stated goals of ending the war immediately and through negotiations. Or it might be a way to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into talks, knowing that he does not have much manpower left to give, even with the lowered draft age.
Despite lowering the draft age from 27 to 25 in 2024, Kyiv had to resort to using patrols to enforce the unpopular measure. Desertion has been a consistent issue in the Ukrainian military, with Kyiv charging at least 100,000 under desertion laws since 2022. Desertions have continued as recently as last week, with dozens of Ukrainian soldiers under training in France being accused of abandoning their posts.
Studies show that Ukraine is facing a severe population crisis if changes aren’t made. The U.N. Population Fund estimated that 10 million, or a quarter of the Ukrainian population, have been lost to death or displacement since 2014, and a separate study claimed that a third of Ukraine’s working population would be lost by 2040. Lowering the compulsive service age to 18 would certainly exacerbate demographic and population crises, especially as Russia seemingly has seen regular successes on the battlefield.
The war in general, is no longer popular with the Ukrainian people either. A recent Gallup Poll found that, for the first time, a majority of Ukrainians preferred a negotiated settlement to continued fighting. Since over 50% of Ukrainians are opposed to this war, it would seem that the “democratic” option would include peace talks as opposed to lowering the draft age, as supported by Waltz.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: DCStockPhotography / Shutterstock.com
The American Enterprise Institute has officially entered the competition for which establishment DC think tank can come up with the most tortured argument for increasing America’s already enormous Pentagon budget.
Its angle — presented in a new report written by Elaine McCusker and Fred "Iraq Surge" Kagan — is that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require over $800 billion in additional dollars over five years for the Defense Department, whose budget is already poised to push past $1 trillion per year.
Before addressing the Ukraine conflict directly, it’s worth looking at the security outcomes of high Pentagon spending during this century. As the Costs of War Project at Brown University has found, the full costs of America’s post-9/11 wars exceed $8 trillion. In addition, hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions have been driven from their homes, thousands of U.S. personnel have died in combat, and hundreds of thousands of vets have suffered physical or psychological injuries. And this huge cost in blood and treasure came in conflicts that not only failed to achieve their original objectives but actually left the target nations less stable and helped create conditions that made it easier for terrorist groups like ISIS to form.
Any call for ratcheting up Pentagon spending needs to reckon with this record of abject failure for a military first, “peace through strength” foreign policy. The new AEI report fails to do so.
As for its central thesis — that a Russian victory in Ukraine will require a sharp upsurge in Pentagon spending — neither part of the argument holds up to scrutiny.
Russia’s performance in Ukraine makes it abundantly clear that Moscow’s armed forces are deeply flawed. They are in a stalemate with a much smaller neighboring country that has parlayed superior morale and an infusion of U.S. and European weaponry into a fighting force that can hold its own against Russia’s much larger military. The only prospect for a Russian victory would be a long war of attrition in which Moscow’s advantages in population and arms production “win” the day.
But even a prolonged war is unlikely to result in total military victory for a Russia, and governing whatever portions of Ukraine it might control will be extremely costly, both economically and in terms of personnel. As a result, even if Moscow were to eventually win a Pyrrhic victory in Ukraine, it would be in no position to take on the 31 member NATO alliance. And it is long past time for our European allies to finally build a coherent military force that can defend its territory without a major U.S. supporting role.
The AEI report is wildly out of touch with current realities, which are tilting towards an approach that would pair continued support for Ukraine’s defensive capabilities with the beginnings of diplomatic track, an approach my colleagues at the Quincy Institute have been advocating since early in the conflict.
We are confronted with an almost mystical belief in official Washington that the first answer to any tough security problem is to increase Pentagon spending and spin out scenarios for addressing a potential war, rather than crafting a strategy in which preventing or ending wars takes precedence.
A cold, hard look at the wars of this century definitively shows that a military first foreign policy is a fool’s errand that does far more harm than good. How long will the American public sit still for this misguided, immensely costly conventional wisdom?
It’s long past time to take a fresh look at America’s military spending and strategy. Unfortunately, the new AEI report does little to reckon with the actual challenges we face.
keep readingShow less
Top Image Credit: Diplomacy Watch: US empties more weapons stockpiles for Ukraine ahead of Biden exit
The Biden administration is putting together a final Ukraine aid package — about $500 million in weapons assistance — as announced in Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s final meeting with the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which coordinates weapons support to Ukraine.
The capabilities in the announcement include small arms and ammunition, communications equipment, AIM-7, RIM-7, and AIM-9M missiles, and F-16 air support.
“We all have a stake in ensuring that autocrats cannot place their imperial ambitions ahead of the bedrock rights of free and sovereign peoples,” Defense Secretary Austin remarked to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group before announcing the aid. “Ukraine is waging a just war of self-defense. And it is one of the great causes of our time.”
The Defense Contact Group was formed by Austin; its future remains unclear as administrations prepare to change hands.
Indeed, incoming President Donald Trump has increasingly critiqued Biden's Ukraine strategy. In a news conference from Mar-a-Lago earlier this week, the president-elect said that the Biden administration’s talk of Ukraine’s possible NATO ascension played a role in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine.
"A big part of the problem is, Russia — for many, many years, long before Putin — said, 'You could never have NATO involved with Ukraine.' Now, they've said that. That's been, like, written in stone," Trump said.
"And somewhere along the line Biden said, 'No. [Ukraine] should be able to join NATO.' Well, then Russia has somebody right on their doorstep, and I could understand their feelings about that."
Trump’s comments about Russia’s invasion rationale follow other critical remarks regarding war. In particular, Trump recently emphasized there had to be a “deal” on Ukraine, as people are “dying at levels nobody has ever seen.” He had also said in his 2024 Person of the Year Interview With TIME that “the number of people dying [in the Ukraine war is] not sustainable…It’s really an advantage to both sides to get this thing done.”
Trump's pick for Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg, meanwhile, has postponed a trip to Ukraine, originally set for early this month, until sometime after Trump’s inauguration. According to Newsweek, reasons for the postponement have not been made public, and a new trip date has yet to be determined.
— Ukraine launched a second Kursk offensive this week, according to ABC News. "We continue to maintain a buffer zone on Russian territory, actively destroying Russian military potential there," Zelensky said about the offensive. Ukraine also hit a Russian air force oil depot in Engles, in Russia’s Saratov territory, hundreds of miles within the country’s borders on Wednesday, where a state of emergency has been declared in response.
— Russia says it’s captured the Ukrainian town of Kurakhove; Ukrainian forces say the city is still being fought over, according to AFP. Russia also bombed Ukrainian city Zaporizhzhia on Wednesday in an attack injuring 100 and killing 13.
— The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared on X that Ukraine could replace Hungary’s role in NATO or the EU “if Hungary chooses to vacate it in favor of membership in the CIS or CSTO.” The Ukrainian MFA’s tongue-in-cheek statement, showcasing growing tensions between Ukraine and Hungary, was made in an X thread accusing Hungary’s leadership of “manipulative statements” about Ukraine’s recent decision to end gas transits from Russia to Europe. Namely, Hungarian FM Péter Szijjártó had threatened to block Ukrainian EU ascension over the gas transit halt, which he said could hurt Europe’s energy security.
"A country that signs an Association Agreement with the EU or aspires to become an EU member must contribute to the EU's energy security by providing transit routes. Therefore, closing gas or oil routes is unacceptable and contradicts the expectations associated with EU integration,” FM Péter Szijjártó said.
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.