Secret History: 'Bombshell' NYT Report Uncovers True Depth of US Involvement in Ukraine War
The following is a detailed ~4,300-word premium article delving into the more insightful nuggets and revelations found in the New York Times’ epic new report on the American involvement in the Ukrainian war. Some have dismissed the NYT report as chaff, filled with obvious realities long known to most. Which is why I’ve specifically concentrated on the rarer insights, and overlooked gems that provide a deeper understanding of just how enmeshed NATO and the US have been in the war since the beginning. This includes major confirmations of my reporting on the Delta Leaks from 2023, as well as fascinating intersections with Grayzone’s leaks about parallel and rival British secret programs to shore up Ukraine.
NYT just released a bombshell exposé which goes into more detail than ever before on the secret US military and intelligence operation using Ukraine as a proxy, which consisted of the combined assets from the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency working in concert with military officials to provide everything from targeting and kill-chain control, to direct frontline tactical maneuver advisement—amongst other things.
Of course, most of it is news only to the NPCs who’ve subsisted on main courses of MSM consumption. If you’ve been a subscriber here for a while, you will have already known everything ‘uncovered’ in the above exposé—which we’ll get in to later—but it’s at least refreshing to see the admissions finally rolling out, as well as more fleshed out details of the involvement. The article was allegedly the result of more than a year’s worth of research, comprising over 300 interviews “with current and former policymakers, Pentagon officials, intelligence officials and military officers in Ukraine, the United States, Britain and a number of other European countries.”
While some agreed to speak on the record, most requested that their names not be used in order to discuss sensitive military and intelligence operations.
It begins by describing how in the early months of the war, two Ukrainian generals embarked on one of the most ‘secretive’ missions of the war, to Clay Kaserne—the HQ of US Army Europe—in Wiesbaden, Germany.
Right up front they make one of the most critical admissions of the conflict:
But a New York Times investigation reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.
In particular, pay attention to the last pair of sentences:
Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. 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 last part in particular is what we had already uncovered here with the Delta Leaks two years ago, which exposed how the US was collating vast reams of actionable targeting data and transmitting it to Ukraine. We later learned through the Google-founded Project Maven that AI was utilized to further sift through these endless satellite/SAR data streams to identify ‘points of interest’.
US/NATO ISR Addendum: Deep Dive Into The Delta Leaks
In two previous articles I’ve mentioned not only the overwhelming C4ISR that the West commands in Ukraine, but also specifically the series of leaks which corroborated this, and gave us the insight into how their systems actually operate, and to what granularity they are transmitting the essential data to on-the-ground Ukrainian forces.
The article is more interesting for the small nuggets it reveals, rather than the grand scheme that had long been obvious to the astute not drinking from the propaganda fountain.
For instance, it describes how early ‘successes’ in the US-Ukraine partnership led to a kind of honeymoon phase which culminated in the offensives of 2022, but soon after had curdled beneath growing resentment between the two sides.
The Ukrainians sometimes saw the Americans as overbearing and controlling — the prototypical patronizing Americans. The Americans sometimes couldn’t understand why the Ukrainians didn’t simply accept good advice.
Where the Americans focused on measured, achievable objectives, they saw the Ukrainians as constantly grasping for the big win, the bright, shining prize. The Ukrainians, for their part, often saw the Americans as holding them back. The Ukrainians aimed to win the war outright. Even as they shared that hope, the Americans wanted to make sure the Ukrainians didn’t lose it.
One of the first episodes they describe, which I must take issue with, is the sinking of the Moskva. The article suspiciously keeps it vague, with the following explanation:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Simplicius's Garden of Knowledge to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.