[Goose]

I don't think the US will be sending troops any time soon. Maybe some of the Baltic states would, but they too would be leery of doing so without any other NATO involvement. Estonia said they'd consider sending unilaterally but would prefer other NATO involvement. 

We have trucks and trains these days, I don't think the extra distance to send Ukrainian trainees outside of Ukraine is really a critical problem.

Totally agree. Training in already existing facilities in Europe is a much better approach. Ukraine lacks adequate training facilities in their own country, and those that they have are not "safe". Russia can and will target large accumulations of manpower wherever it is in Ukraine. In Europe, they can't. NATO countries already have very good training facilities that are underutilized due to the major reduction is forces since the end of the cold war. Do it "right" and don't try to get by with half-ass training done in a war zone. The travel time isn't significant compared to not training because of "steel rain".

The article is focused on training, but Estonian and also France, when talking about deploying troops, were discussing taking on responsibilities in the rear to allow those Ukrainian troops to deploy to the front.

Myself, I would support sending US and NATO troops for this role. I think Russia would be deterred from attacking those troops purposefully, knowing that it would likely bring more US and NATO involvement if those personnel were injured or killed, and that's pretty much the last thing Russia wants or needs. Their internal political messaging already states that NATO and the US are directly at war with Russia, that American weapons are killing Russian soldiers. So if their rhetoric is already there, may as well live up to it.

I understand your point. However, both we and Russia have a very long history of misunderstanding each other's political messaging. We also have a very nasty habit of projecting our decision-making process onto our opponents. We say "no reasonable man would do X" and then our opponents surprise us by doing exactly X, for which we are not prepared. I am pretty sure the administration couldn't generate political consensus to do such a thing even if it wanted to (which I am certain it does not). Russia being "deterred" from doing anything is a very risky business. Even if Russia didn't intend it, eventually some of ours will get killed. War happens, missiles miss, etc. Then what do we do? On top of that, it is an election year. Shouldn't matter, but it does.

IMO Ukraine prevailing is EXTREMELY important to the NATO (and the US in particular). We have adopted a very much less than "all in" strategy from the beginning, and then compounded it with political machinations. The Congress (in the last aid bill) added a "requirement" that the administration provide a written "strategy" for Ukrainian victory (or else no more aid). Congress has done many arguably questionable things, but this isn't one of them. This strategy is IMO critically needed. One would think the administration would be "selling" their strategy to the American people already and it would already be "known".  That strategy, if it exists, would govern what we would be willing to do in terms of "boots on the ground", and we would already be doing it. Changing strategy is sometimes necessary, but when doing so it is essential it is done dispassionately and with a "clear eye". Far too often we keep doing the same thing, knowing it isn't working, because it is the only "plan" we have. If we can't articulate what we are doing and how it will produce the desired end state, we are in deep trouble.

[Goose]

I don't think the US will be sending troops any time soon. Maybe some of the Baltic states would, but they too would be leery of doing so without any other NATO involvement. Estonia said they'd consider sending unilaterally but would prefer other NATO involvement. 

We have trucks and trains these days, I don't think the extra distance to send Ukrainian trainees outside of Ukraine is really a critical problem.

Totally agree. Training in already existing facilities in Europe is a much better approach. Ukraine lacks adequate training facilities in their own country, and those that they have are not "safe". Russia can and will target large accumulations of manpower wherever it is in Ukraine. In Europe, they can't. NATO countries already have very good training facilities that are underutilized due to the major reduction is forces since the end of the cold war. Do it "right" and don't try to get by with half-ass training done in a war zone. The travel time isn't significant compared to not training because of "steel rain".

The article is focused on training, but Estonian and also France, when talking about deploying troops, were discussing taking on responsibilities in the rear to allow those Ukrainian troops to deploy to the front.

Myself, I would support sending US and NATO troops for this role. I think Russia would be deterred from attacking those troops purposefully, knowing that it would likely bring more US and NATO involvement if those personnel were injured or killed, and that's pretty much the last thing Russia wants or needs. Their internal political messaging already states that NATO and the US are directly at war with Russia, that American weapons are killing Russian soldiers. So if their rhetoric is already there, may as well live up to it.

I understand your point. However, both we and Russia have a very long history of misunderstanding each other's political messaging. We also have a very nasty habit of projecting our decision-making process onto our opponents. We say "no reasonable man would do X" and then our opponents surprise us by doing exactly X, for which we are not prepared. I am pretty sure the administration couldn't generate political consensus to do such a thing even if it wanted to (which I am certain it does not). Russia being "deterred" from doing anything is a very risky business. Even if Russia didn't intend it, eventually some of ours will get killed. War happens, missiles miss, etc. Then what do we do? On top of that, it is an election year. Shouldn't matter, but it does.

IMO Ukraine prevailing is EXTREMELY important to the NATO (and the US in particular). We have adopted a very much less than "all in" strategy from the beginning, and then compounded it with political machinations. The Congress (in the last aid bill) added a "requirement" that the administration provide a written "strategy" for Ukrainian victory (or else no more aid). Congress has done many arguably questionable things, but this isn't one of them. This strategy is IMO critically needed. One would think the administration would be "selling" their strategy to the American people already and it would already be "known".  That strategy, if it exists, would govern what we would be willing to do in terms of "boots on the ground", and we would already be doing it. Changing strategy is sometimes necessary, but when doing so it is essential it is done dispassionately and with a "clear eye". Far too often we keep doing the same thing, knowing it isn't working, because it is the only "plan" we have. If we can't articulate what we are doing and how it will produce the desired end state, we are in deep trouble.