There is a lot of hubub on the nets concerning the NY Times article outlining the three-year history of the relationship between the US and Ukraine militaries during the Russian invasion. It’s fascinating, and while the larger strategic issues of the war are pushed into the background in favor of tactical and operational considerations, it fills in important details. Given the length (13,000 words) and the research involved, I’m sure there is a book in the works somewhere.
Given that, there’s something strange going on.
There is little in the article that should be shocking to anyone who has been paying attention for the past three years. It doesn’t take a proverbial “leaked Signal chat” to know that we have been providing the Ukrainians not only with supply, training, and planning support but also with ISR plugged right into the kill chain. We were everything but (officially) boots on the ground.
Problems in paradise between American and Ukrainian military planners? A staple of coalition warfare. The details are interesting, but the overall tenor is not surprising
That there were opportunities on the battlefield lost through miscommunication and political meddling? These dangers are present (and realized) in every war, and it’s the mark of a general’s ability to navigate those shoals at the highest levels of policy that gives them their place in history. George Marshall was a grandmaster at it. Mark Milley, not so much.
All of these facts are interesting, but none of them should be shocking.
So (again) what’s going on?
First, I think you have to go to the source of the article. The NY Times is a player in the larger political-media firmament. Keep in mind that the media reports stories, not events; there are heroes and villains, a narrative arc if the story goes more than a day, and a moral to be learned. The NY Times specifically is not only the narrative-setter for most of the media, but is a willing accomplice to factions and movements within the larger political culture. So it always pays to read it like a Soviet-era Pravda.
So who are the villains? Trump, of course, though he really only comes out in the end in the most indirect way, hovering over the proceedings off-stage, casting a pall and inspiring fear as if the Angel of Death:
“The Ukrainians, he recalled, were terrified that they, too, would be abandoned. They kept calling, wanting to know if America would stay the course, asking: ‘What will happen if the Republicans win the Congress? What is going to happen if President Trump wins?”
“He always told them to remain encouraged, he said. Still, he added, “I had my fingers crossed behind my back, because I really didn’t know anymore.
“Mr. Trump won, and the fear came rushing in.”
Who is another villain? Zelensky.
That comes out once you realize who the heroes are: the American generals who are working with the Ukrainians. The perception generated is that the Americans and Ukrainians are not equals in terms of competence, but more on the lines of a 19th Century European colonial military having to work with a brave yet shifty set of local clans. The Americans keep thinking, “If only… the locals would listen to us and our military superpower ways we can win this war. Why aren’t they more grateful?” All the while, Zelensky keeps meddling, with disastrous results such as in the battle around Bakhmaut, and criticizing the Americans for not giving enough support. Ungrateful savage.
In a less elegant way, what the American generals are doing is CYA, “We could have won the war for Ukraine if it wasn’t for those meddling Ukrainians.”
When you take a step back you realize that the NY Times is saying that the Biden administration misled the American people about our involvement in Ukraine: how heavily we were involved in day-to-day direction of local units and fire support, the status of the Ukrainians, and White House worries about provoking the Russians.
So what’s going on?
A little while back the NY Times printed another story, this one concerning the origins of COVID, where it announced to the world that the virus was created in a Chinese lab. Of course anyone with a shred of analytical ability and independent thought had already come to the same conclusion five years before, but they had been roundly denounced by the media and scientific opinion as ignorant racists.
Then there is the upcoming book by CNN’s Jake Tapper that promises to reveal how a dementia-riddled Joe Biden was allowed to remain president.
Arguably these are three of the biggest, non-Trump stories of the past five years, and the media is in the process of doing a full 180 on all of them. How different would the world be if Americans were fully informed of the situation and risks we were running in Ukraine? Would Joe Biden be allowed to remain as president? Would he even be in the White House in the first place? That the virus that upended the world and killed millions came from American-supported experiments recklessly conducted in a Chinese lab? At the very least, no one would be thanking Dr. Fauci, and in all reality with “Science!” discredited we would have had a smarter response to COVID.
Think of how different the world would be if the media had simply revealed what all of us already knew, rather than being handmaiden to a narrative. Think of how different things would be if the media actually reported the news as it happened, rather than spinning stories about a world it so desperately wanted to exist.
Now? They are allowing the truth to leak out, like air from balloon, when the world had already moved on.
Ask yourself if any of these stories or books would have been published if Kamala had won.
That’s the real story behind that NY Times article.
What a self-serving pack of lies, but how revealing! All this “secret” information, breathlessly served up to us by the grey lady, was known perfectly well to anyone with access to the Internet and a passing interest in what was going on years ago.
The theme of the article is that, if the Ukrainians had only listened to the brilliant US generals, they would have won the war long ago, and we all would have lived happily ever after. In fact, as many somewhat more insightful observers than the NYT had pointed out from the start, it was a war of attrition in which there could only be one winner – Russia. In retrospect, that is precisely what it turned out to be, and continues to be. The longer the war goes on, the worse the outcome will be for Ukraine. Let’s unpack a few passages. As already noted, the article assures us that it will enable us,
“… to see, through a secret keyhole, how the war came to today’s precarious place.”
“Secret keyhole” is an odd way to describe what has long been obvious to anyone who cares to look at the relevant information on YouTube, X, many podcasts, etc., from the start.
Again from the article, Trump has “…baselessly blamed the Ukrainians for starting the war.”
This is of a piece with the legacy mantra that claims of election fraud in 2020 were “without evidence,” when there was plenty of evidence and to spare for anyone who cared to look.
Were the Ukrainians really blameless victims? What they have done is attempt to establish an ethnically pure Ukrainian state in a territory that has historically been multi-cultural and, in the case of the contested regions, majority Russian. It is worth noting that these regions were never historically Ukrainian, but were simply tacked onto Ukraine by Communist bureaucrats in the Soviet Union for reasons of ideological expediency. In order to accomplish their goal, it was necessary to reduce ethnic minorities, and particularly Russians, to the role of second class citizens. They did this by suppressing the Russian Orthodox religion, banning the use of Russian for public and many private transactions, banning the teaching of Russian in the schools, and many similar measures. Meanwhile, they continue to celebrate such Ukrainian “heroes” as Bandera, a Nazi collaborator responsible for the mass murder of Jews and other ethnic minorities during the German occupation. None of this was any secret to the Russians in the contested regions following the US sponsored and funded Maidan coup in 2014. And yet, according to the NYT,
“Their (the Ukrainians’) war, as they saw it, had started in 2014, when Mr. Putin seized Crimea and fomented separatist rebellions in eastern Ukraine.”
It would be difficult to find a single Russian inhabitant of the contested regions who wouldn’t put the lie to such claims. For a description of what actually happened in 2014, see “The Torch of New Russia,” by Pavel Gubarev, one such Russian, who immediately recognized the significance of the coup, sacrificed a relatively comfortable life and job and, with many others, took up arms to defend his people. Far from this sacrifice being “fomented” by Putin, he and many others have since strongly criticized Putin and Russia for failing to come to their aid, and providing only lip service to the rebellion. That rarity, an actual independent journalist worthy of the name, the German Patrick Baab, has confirmed this and revealed the real situation in these regions at the cost of his livelihood. He was fired from two different jobs for daring to tell the truth. Unfortunately, his books have not yet been translated into English.
In the years that followed, Ukraine shelled the rebel regions indiscriminately, hitting schools and residential areas as well as military targets, killing, at a modest count, 14,000 people, many of them women and children. Finally, in violation of one of their Minsk pledges, they used drones purchased abroad to hit the rebels. As noted in news reports in 2021, this was a red line for Russia. So were attempts to bring Ukraine into NATO, giving the lie to “unofficial” promises by high-ranking US officials that this would never happen. So much for Ukraine being “blameless.” What can one say about a regime that tries to establish a monolithic Ukrainian state in an historically richly multicultural region? Pardon me for citing an over-used example, but isn’t that what the Nazis tried to do? To the extent that fascism is a real thing, isn’t that what fascist regimes try to do?
Continuing with the article,
“In some ways, Ukraine was, on a wider canvas, a rematch in a long history of U.S.-Russia proxy wars”
Really?! Do tell!
“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.”
Is it possible for any regime to sink any lower than this, “testing its equipment” over the bodies of more than a million corpses? One is embarrassed to be an American. Meanwhile, the article confirms what some of us have been warning about on this blog:
“The partnership 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.”
What on earth justified imposing such a dire existential threat on the American people in order to prop up the quasi-fascist Ukrainian regime? The article describes in detail credible discussions by Russian military leaders contemplating the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Now, as an exercise for the student, Google the nuclear weapons remaining in the US arsenal. Do you notice something? That’s right! None of them are tactical nuclear weapons. How, then, would we have responded to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the Russians? You guessed it!
It’s amazing that, for anyone capable of looking at a map of what’s been going on on the battlefield for the past year, a year of virtually unbroken Russian advances, the fantasy still exists that the Ukrainians can still “win,” if only another million young men or so are sacrificed. One can only hope that the Ukrainians will finally realize they can’t win and will sue for peace. There is no need for them to “surrender.” If they really want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, let them have one in ethnically pure Ukrainian regions. The Russians and the “evil” Putin won’t object. Let them free the ethnic Russians, along with Poles, Rumanians, Hungarians, Greeks, Turks, Tatars, etc., in the remainder of what is referred to as “Ukraine” to live their lives free of “supervision” by the Ukrainian “Ubermenschen.” That would be a just end to this needless and tragic war.
much the same we tested Stingers to the last Afghan, but that was not inside the territory of Russia, pushing into the Kursk, which awakens most Russians
Donahue was the twitter General, whose 101st Airborne had to be rescued by British Paras during the ruinous Kabul capitulation, and berated one former operator,
as I’ve pointed out before this offensive, would have been rejected at the Frunze school, based on a series of errors, like approaching kiev in the winter months, something that hadn’t been done in about 300 years,
The interesting question prompted by this article is, why did the Biden administration think it was necessary to lie about the aid it was giving Ukraine? In 2022 the proposition that Russia was in the wrong and Ukraine ought to be given war material and intelligence to defeat the invasion would have commanded a large majority in the US. If anything, I’d expect that being open about doing so would have helped them politically.
I can see two possible answers (not necessarily exclusive):
1) Admitting that they were sponsoring a war would have caused a revolt within the Democratic Party, which Biden in his senility would not have been able to quell. The Democratic base therefore had to be deceived; but if the general public knew the truth, the activists would as well.
2) The Biden administration’s goal in Ukraine wasn’t to win the war, but to use it as an excuse for graft. The American public is willing to sponsor wars, if they’re won quickly, and much prefers wars of maneuver. Long, grinding wars of attrition are not popular, and tend to inspire calls to either commit enough for a decisive victory, or quit to cut our losses. But to someone wanting to profit off of war, a long war of attrition is the best possible option. Sponsoring a war without admitting that they were doing it let the Biden administration siphon off funds without being asked to deliver results in good time.
As for why the NYT is publishing the American generals’ version of events now … well, it was bound to come out soon, now that Trump is in charge of the Pentagon, and the blame for letting Ukraine become a war of attrition has to be laid somewhere. Why not pin it on Zelensky, stir up trouble between him and Trump, and make it as hard as possible for Trump to claim success in foreign policy? It’s not as if anyone the NYT considers important will suffer.
First: This is The New York Times. Anyone that believes they have the perspicuity to penetrate the layers of deceit, delusion and conceit to some central kernel of reality is suffering from a delusion of their own.
Even if I trusted the “reporters” to convey truthfully what had been related to them by the supposed 300+ sources, I know beyond certainty that each and every one of those 300+ was pursuing an agenda where truth is not remotely a consideration.
What I know is what can be seen on the ground;
Neither Russia nor Ukraine have the ability to end this by victory.
Trump appears to have extorted some sort of Ukrainian minerals concession in exchange for a cease fire agreement to which Russia has shown every sign possible of contempt.
Ukraine seems hesitant to go through with the above agreement without evidence that Trump can deliver.
Russia has so enmeshed itself in a tangle of disaster that it is beyond the power of anyone, even Trump and the United States, to unravel. To the extent that their economy is quite far along a death spiral.
The fact that North Korea has become one of Russia’s major arms supplier both illustrates the preceding point and renders Trump’s comic opera farce of attempted rapprochement to Kim less humorous.
One example of Russia’s and now Trump’s predicament is that none of the civil aircraft expropriated from their lessors by Russia when sanctions were tightened is ’22 will be or ever can be allowed to enter Western air space. The lapse of properly qualified and documented maintenance coupled with using black market replacement parts and cannibalism makes somehow bringing those planes back up to acceptable standards more expensive than simply scrapping them and buying new planes. There is nothing that Trump can do to fix that and a functioning civil aviation sector is something that Russia will need desperately to escape the hole they have excavated.
That is just one of countless irreversible problems facing Russia.
MCS: “That is just one of countless irreversible problems facing Russia.”
Really? There is lots of information that life is generally getting much better for most Russians — although they do have a problem with high inflation because their economy is going gangbusters and unemployment is so low.
If we want to talk about irreversible problems, we in the West need to look in a mirror. Try to buy a US-made cell phone. The former-“Arsenal of Democracy” managed to build about 5 ocean-going ships last year; China built around 700. Now think of the missing steel mills in the US because of the extinction of US shipbuilding. Think of the loss of human skills which took generations to build up.
History tells us that every civilization eventually collapses. A betting man would put his money on the proposition that Russia will be here long after the US as we know it today has gone.
@Gavin
“Really? There is lots of information that life is generally getting much better for most Russians”
Exactly! There are plenty of podcasters in Russia who have no reason to lie and who portray a reality much different from the orthodox media line that the country is on the point of economic collapse. They’ve been saying the same thing ever since the war started, but somehow Russia, against all odds, manages to stay on its feet! Check out the ruble exchange rate. It has been strengthening against the dollar for months, and showing no sign of “collapse.” I notice that many of the economic doom and gloom articles about Russia that turned up on MSNBC since the start of the war are “no longer accessible.” They’re so at odds with reality that they’re not even any good for gaslighting anymore.
To take the article beyond into the strategic.DC-baed realm…
This article illustrates the problem with not having a functioning president. The executive branch is a massive, shambolic Frankenstein in the best of times when you have energy and direction from the West Wing in the form of one person, but it succumbs to entropy without that man because no can provide focus and crack heads and make decisions. No more so than the military and foreign policy because you need to impress other countries. Biden isn’t that man.
Win Biden made the utterances about toppling Putin, mostly I think because even when he was mentally fit he was ab egotistical fool, that flashed warning signs because he was committing his prestige and that of the country to a certain maxmalist outcome. At the same he lacked the ability to arbitrate in disputes say between State and Defense needed to effect policy or tell Zelensky the score, a Tony Blinken can deliver the message but only the president can make it credible. The setting of red lines and then their drift over them reflect that,
The other point came out in the end of the article in what could only stated as a haigographic portrait of SecDef Lloyd Austin. The role of the SecDef isn’t just to run the Pentagon on the behalf of the presidnet, but to offer his military advice. The same with CJSC in the form of Mark Milley. It was pretty clear with the retreat from Afghanistan that neither were being listened to. In fact Austin’s disappearance for a week when he went into the hospital was notable not just for the fact that he went AWOL but that nobody noticed he was gone. I’m sure the White House didn’t appreciate the publicity, but that’s why they picked Austin in the same way Obama picked his SecDef as a meek seat warmer who wouldn’t make waves.
Milley’s head briefly popped up in late 2022 after the Ukrainian offense when he said it was time to cut a deal with the Russians. While Milley is not in the chain of command he is the president’s chief uniformed military advisor. He was of course ignored, but there are dynamics and requirements for military action – a drifting military strategy of slowing crossing red lines and delays in opening up the aid taps simply gives the Russians the opportunity to adapt. Once again drift, power in the White House devolved to people who had no legitimacy to wield it and therefore acted hesitatingly or they hoarded it. It was clear from the first few months that State would be running the strategic aspects of the war not Defense.
I wouldn’t have expected either Austin or Milley to resign in protest, though they should have; if you noticed very few Biden cabinet people left. Keep in mind Austin used to be a four star and my guess is that neither he nor Milley were going to jeopardize their careers over a silly thing the destructive hurricane that is the Russo-Ukrainian War. After all Milley was more than willing to betray the military effectiveness of the military by openly pushing for DEI – why would he quit over the fact he was being used as a figurehead?
Austin might be the worst SecDef in American history next to McNamara
probably dearborn who was responsible for the failed incursion in Canada in 1812,
they have no shame, we saw this after Kabul, Milley was celebrated subsequently by dhimmi goldberg, but not for that reason, more as the very modern general of Penzance, his CV shows every step of the Sandbox expeditions, in Iraq as well as Afghanistan,
Gerasimov, the architect of this Caucasus folly, who lost a relative, in the course of this special military op, that claimed at least 100 staff officers