In a major escalation of the US-NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown told the New York Times Thursday that the NATO military alliance will “eventually” send significant numbers of active-duty NATO troops to Ukraine, which the newspaper said meant the deployment was “inevitable.”

In asserting that NATO sending troops is “inevitable,” the Times means the decision has already been made, and all that is being awaited is the determination on how best to announce the escalation to the public.

Brown’s statement that NATO will send troops to Ukraine, after US President Joe Biden categorically ruled out such a move because it would lead to “World War III,” continues the pattern: Every time the White House has said it would not do something in Ukraine, it has subsequently done it.

It is high time for President Joe Biden to go on national television and inform the American people that a decision has been made to send US and NATO troops to fight Russia in Ukraine, that this is a massive escalation of the war, that there is a high probability that this will lead to a nuclear war, and that hundreds of millions of people will be killed if that happens.

Biden should also explain how the US government, or whatever is left of it, would deal with the obliteration of a large portion of the country. He should also explain clearly why the admission of Ukraine into NATO justifies risking such an outcome.

The claim that the troops being sent would merely be “training” Ukrainian forces, rather than serving as frontline troops, is meaningless. Once inside Ukraine, they would come under fire from Russian forces, leading to direct retaliation against Russian aircraft and air-to-ground sites by NATO forces.

The Times makes this clear: “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.”

Brown’s claim that the decision will be made “eventually” and “over time” is purely to obfuscate the fact that the US’s leading military official has publicly announced an action that Russian officials have said would lead to direct attacks on US troops.

In fact, if there is anything the NATO war effort lacks, it is time. The Times article admits this, declaring, “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.”

In other words, the US’s strategy of “fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian” has played itself out, and there are no longer enough Ukrainian troops left to hold the front. Any effort to rescue the Ukrainian position will require the rapid deployment not just of NATO “trainers” but of active-duty combat forces to fight on the front line.

The Times itself admits that planning for the NATO deployments inside Ukraine is already far advanced. It reports that “NATO last month asked Gen. Christopher G. Cavoli, the supreme allied commander for Europe, to come up with a way for the alliance to do more to help Ukraine.”

The declaration by the US Joint Chiefs chairman marks a new stage in a concerted and orchestrated campaign to legitimize the concept of sending NATO troops to Ukraine, which all US and other NATO politicians had vocally declared was beyond the pale.

In February, French President Emmanuel Macron declared that NATO should consider sending ground troops to Ukraine, which both he and Biden categorically promised not to do. Within weeks, Macron was joined by officials from France, Canada, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Poland. Last week, officials from Estonia echoed these statements.

Now, a US official has gone even further than Macron, not only declaring that sending NATO troops should be considered, but that it is “inevitable.”

The carefully stage-managed presentation of the US decision to send troops to Ukraine follows the exact same script that was used to introduce the sending of armored vehicles, tanks, fighter jets and long-range missiles.

In each case, the first stage is a categorical denial. In March 2022, Biden declared, “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews—just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what y’all say, that’s called World War III.”

In June 2022, Macron echoed these sentiments, declaring, “we are not entering the war. … Thus, it has been agreed not to supply certain weapons—including attack aircraft or tanks.”

By January 2023, Macron had declared “France will provide light combat tanks and continue its support in air defense,” followed by the announcement by Biden that “the United States will be sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine.”

The script was then repeated in the decision to send long-range weapons to Ukraine and to allow them to be used against Crimea and other parts of Russia.

In May 2022, Biden declared, “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders.” In September 2022, Biden declared “We’re not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that strike into Russia.”

But last month, the Biden administration announced that it had secretly sent long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, which had already been used to strike Crimea, which Russia claims as its own territory. Earlier this month, UK Foreign Minister David Cameron declared that Ukraine has the “right” to use weapons provided by NATO to strike any part of Russian territory.

Beyond the Times’ declaration that the US has decided to send troops to Ukraine, the article makes another staggering admission: The United States has already sent defense contractors to Ukraine to service advanced weapons sent by NATO countries.

The article declares, “a small number” of US defense contractors “have already been allowed in [to Ukraine], under State Department authorities, to work on specific weapons systems like Patriot air defenses.”

The article quotes Alexander S. Vindman, a leading architect of the US war with Russia in Ukraine, who declared, “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.”

When, last year, the US announced that it was sending M1 Abrams battle tanks to Ukraine, the World Socialist Web Site warned, “The significance of Biden’s announcement lies less in the battlefield impact of the tanks than in the consequences of deploying them.” We warned that these weapons “will require a massive logistical network inside Ukraine, involving large numbers of specialist American contractors. Attacks on these supply networks and American personnel servicing the tanks will then be used to press for implementation of a ‘no-fly zone’ and the deployment of US and NATO troops to Ukraine.”

Under conditions in which the Ukrainian battle front is nearing collapse, these plans have been significantly accelerated, raising the threat of a rapid escalation of a direct war between NATO and Russia.