a fairly significant sign they are an ally.

And the US funding and training the other groups was "a fairly significant sign that they were allies," but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then "fairly significant signs" are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren't allied. You don't have to read into the signs, it's an objective fact.

"Security guarantees" aren't alliances. Or if they are, then we're using the term informally, and it's therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people.

Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don't get to have it both ways.

I don't know why you are being so obtuse. Aparantly, you can only be called an ally of america if you are being paraded around Washington or something.

Americans providing weapons and training doesn't count, because the structure for providing this isn't to your standards.

The Mujaheddin did need help, they needed weapons, bombs, intelligence, diplomatic support, booby traps specifically procured by the CIA. The US provided it.

And then back home, they used their contacts in the media to make sure everyone knew that the Mujaheddin were the good guys worthy of America's support, even if they were not officially receiving it. Americans, Mujaheddin, and Soviets all understood the US supported the Mujaheddin, even if there was a layer of plausible deniability. It's why the Soviets asked the US to stop the attacks on Soviet soldiers during the pullout and not Pakistan.

The american people were told to see the Mujaheddin as their ally, and the Mujaheddin understood it was the US supporting them.