New York Times Admits Ukraine Was An American Run Proxy War.

The New York Times Had Now Revealed That The Ukraine War Was An American Led Proxy War And Offers Some Shocking New Details.

Since February of 2022, anyone who said the war in Ukraine was a proxy war between Russia and the United States that could lead to Nuclear War or World War Three was accused of spreading “Kremlin talking points” or "Russian disinformation”.

Now, The New York Times, known as the U.S. “paper of record,” had published a lengthy report, “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine” which not only admits the war is a proxy war, but offers bombshell after bombshell proving that the United States was more involved than was previously known and that the war got closer to a larger and possible nuclear conflict than was previously known.

In this article, I will review the important revelations from the article and analyse why they are significant.

The New York Times Calls It A “Proxy War”.

For the first time, the New York Times -in this report- admitted that the Ukraine war was a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia.

In the report, the paper writes “In some ways, Ukraine was, on a wider canvas, a rematch in a long history of U.S.-Russia proxy wars — Vietnam in the 1960s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, Syria three decades later.”

There is also a similarity between the proxy wars in Afghanistan and Syria to the Ukraine proxy war.

The former U.S. diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that the United States “signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul,” which they believed would “induce a Soviet military intervention”.

Brezinski admitted that the United States “didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but knowingly increased the probability that they would” because it would have “the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap” and give the “USSR its Vietnam war”.

This strategy was replicated in the Syrian war, where the CIA covertly armed rebels fighting the Russian-backed Assad regime, which eventually led the Russians to intervene in 2015.

Yet again, this strategy was deployed in Ukraine. Going back all the way to 1997, the veteran U.S. diplomat George Kennan warned that further NATO expansion toward Russia would:

be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.

Despite this warning, the United States continued to expand NATO membership to countries encroaching on Russia’s border.

By 2008, then ambassador to Russia William J. Burns made this warning more clearly in a leaked memo where he stated, that “Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.”

Burns warned that “Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.”

He finished the memo warning that “Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”

The U.S. went on to back a coup in Ukraine in 2014 that, in fact, led to the civil war that Burns warned of in Eastern Ukraine.

In a recent speech to the European parliament, the influential American economist Jeffery Sachs testified that he “had an hour-long call with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in the White House, begging” him to “avoid the war” by declaring that “NATO will not enlarge Ukraine.”

Sachs noted that Sullivan told him, “Oh, NATO’s not going to enlarge Ukraine. Don’t worry about it.”

Noam Chomsky compares this strategy to the aforementioned “Afgan Trap” arguing in his latest book that

The United States ... declined to push for a settlement. It Refused to consider revoking the commitment to admit Ukraine into NATO. In fact, in December 2021, NATO reaffirmed that it was ultimately planning to integrate. Even As the U.S. warned of an impending invasion, it made no diplomatic efforts to influence Russia's behavior.

Chomsky correctly noted that “There are parallels here with the U.S. attitude toward the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s,” referring to the aforementioned interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski and pointed out that the United States refusal to take Ukraine’s NATO membership off the table was parallel to “drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap”.

New Bombshell Details On the Proxy War.

The New York Times report revealed some shocking new details about how deeply involved the United States actually was in the Ukraine war, writing that the investigation “ reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood”.

The Paper found that “the partnership” between the U.S. and Ukraine “was the backbone of Ukrainian military operations that, by U.S. counts, have killed or wounded more than 700,000 Russian soldiers.”

It revealed that “Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center (In Germany), American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counter offensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.”

The paper even reported that “One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts were in Ukrainian operations.”

The paper quoted him saying that “They are part of the kill chain now”.

The paper even noted that a Ukrainian and American general worked together “At the heart of the partnership”.

They noted that one of the two major “partners” was “General Donahue,” “a star in the clandestine world of special forces” who previously “had hunted terrorist chiefs in the shadows of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan”.

This shows that the United States was not only backing Ukraine for its geopolitical goals but was actually in Ukraine, providing their intelligence and creating their battle strategy for them.

The report also contains some bombshells about the inner workings of the Ukraine proxy war.

First, it reveals that Mark Milley, the former Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Biden administration, never thought Ukraine could win the war. He is quoted in the article as often saying, “You’ve got a little Russian army fighting a big Russian army, and they’re fighting the same way, and the Ukrainians will never win”.

This proves what was reported by Simon Shuster in Time Magazine, who found that the Biden administration never thought “Ukraine’s victory” was possible despite saying otherwise publicly.

Now we have confirmation that Biden’s top military advisor predicted correctly all along that Ukraine would lose the war but lied to the public that they would win to justify continuing the war.

The article revealed that Mark Milley and the Pentagon knew all along that the 2023 “spring counteroffensive” would fail and advocated for Ukraine to strike a deal when they were in a stronger position, to be rebuked by warmongers in Congress who accused them of “appeasement”.

The article wrote that :

At the Pentagon, officials worried about their ability to supply enough weapons for the counteroffensive; perhaps the Ukrainians, in their strongest possible position, should consider cutting a deal. When the Joint Chiefs chairman, General Milley, floated that idea in a speech, many of Ukraine’s supporters (including congressional Republicans, then overwhelmingly supportive of the war) cried appeasement.

Another shocking aspect of the article is multiple instances that show the blatant disregard American officials had for regular Ukrainians’ lives.

At one point, the article quotes American General Chris Donahue “thanking” the Ukrainians for allowing them to use Ukranian lives to test Military equipment and war strategy. As the report says:

General Donahue explained that the Ukrainians were the ones fighting and dying, testing American equipment and tactics and sharing lessons learned. “Thanks to you,” he said, “we built all these things that we never could have.”

The article earlier noted that part of the American motive for the Ukraine proxy war was to use it to test weapons and military strategy writing:

It was also a grand experiment in war fighting, one that would not only help the Ukrainians but reward the Americans with lessons for any future war.

Another shocking part of the article notes that Biden’s defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, would see young Ukrainians and think that they would make good cannon fodder for the proxy war, eventually pressuring Ukraine to lower the draft age to 18.

The article reported that:

Mr. Austin (defense secretary Loyd Austin) would later recount how he contemplated this manpower mismatch as he looked out the window of his armored S.U.V. snaking through the Kyiv streets. He was struck, he told aides, by the sight of so many men in their 20s, almost none of them in uniform. In a nation at war, he explained, men this age are usually away, in the fight.

The report went on to write:

Mr. Austin pressed Mr. Zelensky to take the bigger, bolder step and begin drafting 18-year-olds. To which Mr. Zelensky shot back, according to an official who was present, “Why would I draft more people? We don’t have any equipment to give them.”

The Biden administration publicly claimed to care about Ukraine, but this report shows that top officials secretly used Ukraine to test military equipment and could not see young Ukrainian men on the street without wanting to draft them to fight in the unwinnable proxy war.

The Biden Administration and The CIA Almost Caused A Nuclear War.

One of the most shocking aspects of the article is the revelation that Russian Nuclear threats were indeed serious.

The report noted that “The partnership” between the United States and Ukraine “operated in the shadow of deepest geopolitical fear — that Mr. Putin might see it as breaching a red line of military engagement and make good on his often-brandished nuclear threats”.

The report noted that “The story of the partnership shows how close the Americans and their allies sometimes came to that red line” due to the fact that “Time and again, the Biden administration authorized clandestine operations it had previously prohibited.”

The report noted that:

American military advisers were dispatched to Kyiv and later allowed to travel closer to the fighting. Military and C.I.A. officers in Wiesbaden helped plan and support a campaign of Ukrainian strikes in Russian-annexed Crimea. Finally, the military and then the C.I.A. received the green light to enable pinpoint strikes deep inside Russia itself.

This proves that the Biden administration actively approved and helped plan Ukrainian strikes into Russian territory with American weapons, something Russia consistently said would trigger a nuclear response and a war with America.

In one particularly disturbing instance, the report notes when the United States began to approve Ukrainian strikes into Crimea wiring:

First, the Navy was allowed to share points of interest for Russian warships just beyond Crimea’s territorial waters. In October, with leeway to act within Crimea itself, the C.I.A. covertly started supporting drone strikes on the port of Sevastopol.

The report wrote that this action came dangerously close to causing a nuclear response from Russia, writing:

That same month, U.S. intelligence overheard Russia’s Ukraine commander, Gen. Sergei Surovikin, talking about indeed doing something desperate: using tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the Ukrainians from crossing the Dnipro and making a beeline to Crimea.

The report even found that U.S. intelligence agencies found that at this moment, they estimated the chance of Russia using Nuclear Weapons from a 5-10 percent to a 50 percent chance. The report wrote, “Until that moment, U.S. intelligence agencies had estimated the chance of Russia’s using nuclear weapons in Ukraine at 5 to 10 percent. Now, they said, if the Russian lines in the south collapsed, the probability was 50 percent.”

The report noted that this “might also have been the best chance to ignite a wider war” but “in a sort of grand ambiguity, the moment never came”.

Even after this terrifying flare-up up the report found that “the Biden administration would find itself forced to keep crossing its own red lines simply to keep the Ukrainians afloat” .

One example cited is the fact that the United States refused to give Ukraine ATACMS (MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System) at first because it was seen as a red line by Russia.

The report noted that “Russia’s military chief, General Gerasimov, had indirectly referred to them (ATACMS) the previous May when he warned General Milley that anything that flew 190 miles would be breaching a red line.”

Furthermore, the U.S. noted that giving Ukraine ATACMS would actually diminish U.S. national security because “The Pentagon was already warning that it would not have enough ATACMS if America had to fight its own war”

Despite this, “Mr. Zelensky would get his long-pined-for ATACMS” from the Biden administration, “which arrived secretly in early spring, so the Russians wouldn’t realize Ukraine could now strike across Crimea”.

The report also noted that the Biden administration crossed “the hardest red line,” which was “the Russian border”.

The report found that the United States created “an “ops box” — a zone on Russian soil in which the Ukrainians could fire U.S.-supplied weapons” and authorized the CIA “to send officers to the Kharkiv region to assist their Ukrainian counterparts with operations inside the box.”

This shows that the Biden administration not only approved of Ukraine shooting U.S. weapons into Russia but actively sent CIA agents to aid Ukraine in these strikes, a blatant and dangerous escalation that took place after U.S. intelligence believed Russia was serious about using Nuclear weapons over Crimea.

The report noted that “The unthinkable had become real. The United States was now woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil.”

The Biden administration had also deemed the targeting of the Kerch Strait Bridge linking Crimea to Russia as a “red line” noting that “Putin saw the bridge as powerful physical proof of Crimea’s connection to the motherland”.

Despite this “the White House authorized the military and C.I.A. to secretly work with the Ukrainians and the British on a blueprint of attack to bring the bridge down”. (Side note: Credit to independent investigative journalist

Kit Klarenberg

for reporting on British involvement in this all the way back in 2022)

The report notes that Biden “crossed his final red line” in 2024 by “expanding the ops box to allow ATACMS and British Storm Shadow strikes into Russia” both crossing the ATACMS red line and the red line prohibiting direct U.S. attacks on Russia.

The report also noted that “The(Biden) administration also authorized the C.I.A. to support long-range missile and drone strikes into a section of southern Russia used as a staging area for the assault on Pokrovsk, and allowed the military advisers to leave Kyiv for command posts closer to the fighting.”

The fact that this did not spiral into World War three or a nuclear war is truly a miracle, but this report shows that Biden again and again crossed all of Russia’s red lines and authorized direct American attacks into Russian soil.

Earlier in the report, it quotes an official who opposed giving Ukraine direct intelligence as to where Russian officials were located saying “Imagine how that would be for us if we knew that the Russians helped some other country assassinate our chairman” with another U.S. official saying “Like, we’d go to war”.

But the Biden administration and the CIA took it way farther than this, actively working with Ukraine to strike into Crimea and later deep into Russian territory, even after the U.S. intelligence estimated a “50 percent chance” Russia would use Nuclear weapons over Crimea.

Final Thoughts

The truth about war will always come out, but only when it’s too late. This information would have been crucial during the Biden administration, but mainstream media denied these facts for years, only to admit that they were true all along -after the damage had already been done.

---

Note to readers: The Dissident is a reader-supported outlet. If you liked this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber.