Under the Radar: Major CIA Revelations Expose Secret Agreements and Boundaries in Ukraine

This past July, one of the most remarkable articles of the entire Ukrainian war flew under the radar. I’ve had it sitting on my tab for weeks now, but could never quite fit the information in. It is so eye-opening, and dispels so many narratives in the West, that I thought it deserving of its own writeup; particularly because it has flown so under the radar for whatever reason, causing most people to miss its many juicy revelations.

The article is the following from Newsweek:

https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html

Its age does not detract from its significance as the information therein is more pertinent than ever—which is precisely why I chose to do an exposé on it now.

The reason is, as the Ukrainian war presently enters a new watershed phase characterized by the slow-acceptance of Ukraine’s now de facto losing position, a proverbial windmill of narratives is churned out from the pro-UA side seeking to somehow reconcile the various cognitive dissonances created by their inability to understand how it is possible that the mighty NATO bloc could be losing to Russia.

This results in their proposing increasingly convoluted theories as to why the US may be “deliberately sabotaging” Ukraine’s otherwise guaranteed “victory”. For instance, a common coping narrative you might hear these days is that the US “fears” Ukraine winning a total and ‘decisive’ victory over Russia because this would cause Russia to “fracture” into many small feudal states, which could precipitate an existential crisis as the warlords of the new states would vie for the now unaccounted for nuclear weapons, etc. Though it is obviously preposterous, this is the type of narrative being floated on pro-UA thinkspaces to try and explain away the US’s perceived weakness and ‘cowardice’ in the face of Russia’s growing dominance.

They simply cannot understand how it is possible that the US would not stand up to the putatively “weak” Russia. In their mind, addled by two years of propaganda characterizing Russia as a totally dysfunctional failed state with an unimaginably weak military, it’s simply impossible to reconcile these two quotients. So the only logical inference is that it is an intentional act by the US—the only remaining question being why the US would intentionally condition Ukraine’s loss.

But the article dispels such fantasies and reveals some of the real reasons behind US’s seemingly perplexing posture.

Firstly, the article revolves around—as per usual—the statements of an anonymous “senior intelligence official” from the Biden administration, who is “directly involved in Ukraine policy planning,” and notes that the topics discussed therein are ‘highly classified matters’.

The first significant offering is the following:

That the Ukraine war is a clandestine war, with its own set of clandestine rules, and that one of the CIA’s chief roles is to prevent the war from spiraling too much out of control. This will come into heavier play later.

The senior official goes on to clarify the latter position:

"Don't underestimate the Biden administration's priority to keep Americans out of harm's way and reassure Russia that it doesn't need to escalate," the senior intelligence officer says. "Is the CIA on the ground inside Ukraine?" he asks rhetorically. "Yes, but it's also not nefarious."

What he reveals there is likewise significant: the Biden administration has an absolute priority in reassuring Russia to keep Russia from escalating too much. Why would that be? The answer is the broader theme of my entire article.

In fact, Newsweek states that the article is the culmination of three long months of intense trail-following and digging into the CIA’s covert operations in Ukraine.

Again, they highlight the chief operative pillars:

The second official says that while some in the Agency want to speak more openly about its renewed significance, that is not likely to happen. "The corporate CIA worries that too much bravado about its role could provoke Putin," the intelligence official says.

You can see the common theme of the constant prudential tip-toeing around Russia’s redlines so as not to excessively provoke Putin.

They go on to express that the CIA is keen to distance itself from any of Ukraine’s more provocative actions, like the Nordstream attack, or strikes on Russian territory.

But the key portion of the article, which comes next, is the admission that Biden dispatched CIA director Burns to Russia on the eve of the invasion in late 2021. They had been watching Russia’s troop buildups, and in essence sent Burns to deliver a final warning of consequences should Russia proceed with an invasion. Though Putin ended up “snubbing” the CIA head by staying in a Sochi resort and refusing to meet him in person, he did take his secure phone call from Sochi.

What comes next is the heart of the entire article and is one of the most significant and remarkable admissions of the entire war. It is a must read:

Read that several times to comprehend the gravity of it, as this one statement alone single handedly explains and encapsulates the entire dynamic of the war.

Once again I’m forced to be the bearer of the news that not all is as it seems on the surface. Russia isn’t the 10 foot giant some have built it up to be, nor is it a dwarf. Likewise, the US isn’t some uncompromisingly all-powerful entity that does what it wants at all times with zero qualms or concern for repercussions.

This may be a difficult point for some to swallow; after all, how is it possible in actual practice that the US could be fearful of Russia’s reprisal? After all, the US has its vaunted fleets that sail unchallenged through every sea; just the US’s naval air wing alone, believe it or not, makes up the second largest airforce in the entire world. That’s right, just the Navy, which itself pales in comparison to the Airforce, has more planes than the entire Russian airforce. What could such an imposing powerhouse possibly fear from little ol’ Russia?

It stems from the misunderstanding of the actual logistical nuances of the US’s force projection capabilities in the European theater. The people confused by these revelations are those who easily fell prey to a very generalized and caricaturized image of the US military’s operations therein. They’ve developed a blanket image of US forces being able to operate all over Europe, instantly bringing to bear endless stealth craft, unlimited unstoppable missiles, hundreds of thousands of troops, etc.

But that’s far from reality. The US is direly overstretched; its most critical bases in Europe—the ones actually capable of fielding the types of platforms that could actually do anything against Russia, are highly vulnerable. The US has further learned from the Ukrainian conflict that its most advanced air defense is virtually helpless against Russia’s top missiles. Reuters recently told us that Ukraine alone has 1/3 of all the air defense of the entire European continent, and yet Russia has no trouble penetrating it.

This is not to swing the pendulum too far to the other side and lay unrealistic claim to Russia being able to easily and instantly wipe out all of NATO—no, it’s simply to temper ideas about what US and NATO could realistically do to Russia. At the end of the day, a war between the two could very well be a stalemate but it would come at massive costs to the US/NATO, which is precisely the point that pro-UA supporters have made themselves blind to.

But the internal players—the CIA and policy makers—certainly understand this. Which is why they have openly made clear in the above article that a stringent set of ‘rules of the game’ have been laid out between the counterparties. Russia has obviously made it clear that it is willing to strike NATO assets that are assisting Ukraine if things are pushed too far. The US likewise now understands that Russia indisputably has the capability to do so. Thus they have shaken hands and agreed to limit the trampling of each other’s red lines. Russia will allow the US certain clandestine operations within the purview of the gentleman’s agreement, and the US in turn will venture to keep its rabid dog on a short leash and within the narrow bounds of the playpen.

We’ve long known and suspected that such rules extend beyond just this locus, and could explain why, for instance, Russia has limited its strikes on Ukrainian rail infrastructure, bridges, etc. We’ve long known the West still receives critical supply deliveries from both Russia and China—particularly of precious metals, rare earths, etc.—by rail through Ukraine. This is simply realpolitik at work, and all wars in history have operated under more or less similar conventions.

Just as a final thought experiment to drive the point home for those who remain skeptical or unconvinced. It’s not so much that NATO—in its most “ideal” and purest sense can’t defeat Russia. If we were absolutely certain that NATO could operate under the most ideal circumstances, with full solidarity and a united front, then sure. But the problem is, the real world simply doesn’t operate in “ideals” all the time, or even most of the time. NATO suffers from large internal disputes and friction on critical points.

The fear is the following: if Russia were to actually strike NATO territory, what would happen if unity fails, and some members refuse to risk the total annihilation of their state and citizens’ lives to protect another member merely for the sake of something they rationally know was that members’ fault? For instance, if Rzeszow, Poland was struck—why would Hungary and several other states risk being annihilated when they know full well that Poland is acting as a central hub of aggression against Russia, and that Russia could clearly be argued to be justified in protecting itself?

Do the pro-UA people understand what the consequences of a smaller NATO state’s involvement are? It could mean the literal nuclear annihilation of that state if they were to escalate Article 5 and bring NATO vs. Russia to the brink. Why would many of these smaller states want to risk their total erasure from existence for the sake of the scenario above? A single state or two cowing could create a cascade which ripples through the entire alliance. And guess what the implication of that would be?

It could be the total dissolution of NATO as an alliance.

Because once the point is reached where Article 5 has been exposed as an irrelevant non-starter, then NATO itself ceases to be—given that the article serves as NATO’s primary existential heart and soul.

Arestovich broached this very topic earlier today:

So, getting back: knowing the above, why would the US risk such a confrontation that could potentially collapse all of NATO and undo decades of US hegemony over all of Europe? Such a disaster would lead to the US’s entire downfall—the loss of all influence and global power. Is that much of a risk worth it to play brinkmanship games against Russia for mere bragging rights and geopolitical ego?

No, of course not. US elites are smarter than that. Calculated risk is certainly operable in many circumstances, but when the stakes are that high, US planners know when to hedge and when to fold. The loss of Ukraine is not worth risking the loss of their entire global hegemonic order—it’s simply far too much Empire to lose.

That means the US is forced to play within the bounds of certain rules set by Russia. The article goes on to emphasize this:

"Zelensky has certainly outdone everyone else in getting what he wants, but Kyiv has had to agree to obey certain invisible lines as well," says the senior defense intelligence official. In secret diplomacy largely led by the CIA, Kyiv pledged not to use the weapons to attack Russia itself. Zelensky has said openly that Ukraine will not attack Russia.

Interestingly, we learn not everyone was on board:

Behind the scenes, dozens of countries also had to be persuaded to accept the Biden administration's limits. Some of these countries, including Britain and Poland, are willing to take more risk than the White House is comfortable with. Others—including some of Ukraine's neighbors—do not entirely share American and Ukrainian zeal for the conflict, do not enjoy unanimous public support in their anti-Russian efforts and do not want to antagonize Putin.

Two important points from the above. Firstly, it’s no surprise the UK and Poland are open to “taking more risk” than the US itself. At first glance this appears to imply the US to be the most skittish. But I’ve covered this angle before: the fact remains that the US has the most to lose. Of course the weak Poles would be full of bravado—they know if crap hits the fan, they can run to hide behind the US’s skirts.

The UK likewise hasn’t too much to fear from Russia owing to the fact that it doesn’t have much assets in Europe—at least compared to the US. And it’s situated far enough that, unlike even Poland, it needn’t fear much from medium range ballistic missile retaliation. It’s difficult to strike Britain—and therefore harm it in any way—without escalating to a far larger scale of conflict in general. Poland on the other hand can be struck at whim without even changing the tempo of the current war.

So the fact remains: such countries are full of bravado precisely because they have “daddy” to hide behind, and neither has as much to lose as the US. But since “the buck stops” with the US, the de facto NATO head doesn’t have the luxury to be so gung ho because it would be the US taking the brunt of Russia’s reprisal if things drastically turned left.

The second point confirms what I said earlier about NATO’s hidden internal disunity. They state openly that some of Ukraine’s “neighbors”—which can only refer to countries like Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, etc.—which are all NATO—do not share the same ‘zeal’ for the conflict and do not have public support for it. This means if a scenario developed as I described earlier, it would end precisely as I outlined: NATO disunity on Article 5 would risk tearing the entire alliance apart, and “exposing” its central and founding pillar as fraudulent and ineffective in practice. It’s too grave a risk for US to haphazardly take on.

The article adds more details:

"The CIA has been operating inside Ukraine, under strict rules, and with a cap on how many personnel can be in country at any one time," says another senior military intelligence official. "Black special operators are restricted from conducting clandestine missions, and when they do, it is within a very narrow scope." (Black special operations refers to those that are conducted clandestinely.)

Simply, CIA personnel can routinely go—and can do—what U.S. military personnel can't. That includes inside Ukraine. The military, on the other hand, is restricted from entering Ukraine, except under strict guidelines that have to be approved by the White House. This limits the Pentagon to a small number of Embassy personnel in Kyiv. Newsweek was unable to establish the exact number of CIA personnel in Ukraine, but sources suggest it is less than 100 at any one time.

This is an interesting set of admissions because it asserts that the CIA is operating in Ukraine because nominal US military forces being there would constitute “boots on the ground”—a far stickier situation. However, the real angle to this is that allowing CIA to operate gives the US a sort of plausible deniability to characterize the operations with an image of corporate looking guys in suit-and-ties, black sunglasses, briefcases, merely gathering intel—innocuous by comparison to full-fledged military commandos armed to the teeth.

However, in reality we know the CIA has its own clandestine combat forces. Things like the Special Activities Center (SAC), within which lies Special Operations Group (SOG)—considered to be the most secretive unit in the entire US governmental structure. SOG has its own direct combat units, from wiki:

As the action arm of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, SAC/SOG conducts direct action missions such as raids, ambushes, sabotage, targeted killings and unconventional warfare (e.g., training and leading guerrilla and military units of other countries in combat) as an irregular military force. SAC/SOG also conducts special reconnaissance that can be either military or intelligence driven and is carried out by Paramilitary Officers (also called Paramilitary Operatives or Paramilitary Operations Officers) when in "non-permissive environments". Paramilitary Operations Officers are also fully trained case officers (i.e., "spy handlers") and as such conduct clandestine human intelligence (HUMINT) operations throughout the world.

That’s all to say that bureaucratically limiting “personnel on the ground” to just “CIA” and not “boots on the ground” doesn’t mean a thing: the CIA has its own “boots” and is most certainly using them. It’s just administrative semantics.

The article goes on to describe the off-radar logistics operation which clandestinely supplies Ukraine:

Now, more than a year after the invasion, the United States sustains two massive networks, one public and the other clandestine. Ships deliver goods to ports in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Poland, and those supplies are moved by truck, train and air to Ukraine. Clandestinely though, a fleet of commercial aircraft (the "grey fleet") crisscrosses Central and Eastern Europe, moving arms and supporting CIA operations. The CIA asked Newsweek not to identify specific bases where this network is operating, nor to name the contractor operating the planes. The senior administration official said much of the network had been successfully kept under wraps, and that it was wrong to assume that Russian intelligence knows the details of the CIA's efforts. Washington believes that If the supply route were known, Russia would attack the hubs and routes, the official said.

Another small admission at the end. Pro-UA armchair warriors on Twitter believe US is incapable of being challenged and that Russia is weak; in the meantime, the actual CIA people who work the conflict understand the realities quite differently.

Then comes another reveal of Russia’s own clandestine capabilities:

It then outlines the key role Poland has taken, which obviously goes toward reinforcing the idea that Poland will be made into the “new Ukraine” in the future, after the current one is used up and discarded:

Since the end of the Cold War, Poland and the United States, through the CIA, have established particularly warm relations. Poland hosted a CIA torture "black site" in the village of Stare Kiejkuty during 2002-2003. And after the initial Russian invasion of Donbas and Crimea in 2014, CIA activity expanded to make Poland its third-largest station in Europe.

In fact, I’m fairly well taken aback that they’re even so openly making such large admissions. The CIA usually doesn’t talk about the CIA unless there’s an advantageous angle to it.

And that angle could very well be their attempt to distance themselves from an increasingly erratic and unpredictable Ukrainian ‘mad dog’, which has increasingly gone ‘off the leash’, refusing to play by those previously established rules. The article goes on to highlight this next:

One crisis was averted. But a new one was brewing. Strikes inside Russia were continuing and even increasing, contrary to the fundamental U.S. condition for supporting Ukraine. There was a mysterious spate of assassinations and acts of sabotage inside Russia, some occurring in and around Moscow. Some of the attacks, the CIA concluded, were domestic in origin, undertaken by a nascent Russian opposition. But others were the work of Ukraine—even if analysts were unsure of the extent of Zelensky's direction or involvement.

Given the above, could the CIA have been using such publications to absolve itself? This would further play into the chief theme that the CIA is very diligently trying to signal its ‘gentlemanly’ intentions to Russia so that no misunderstandings or un-planned escalations can occur.

The article segues this into the Nordstream attacks in such a way as to almost suggest the entire thing was written merely to absolve the CIA of those attacks, and pin the blame entirely on Ukraine.

In a clear sign that the CIA feared Russian reprisals, they reportedly “scrambled” to discover the origins of the Kerch and other attacks after a Russian security council began to change its tone in those attacks’ aftermath:

Meeting with his Security Council, Putin said, "If attempts continue to carry out terrorist acts on our territory, Russia's responses will be harsh and in their scale will correspond to the level of threats created for the Russian Federation." And indeed Russia did respond with multiple attacks on targets in Ukrainian cities.

"These attacks only further reinforce our commitment to stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes," the White House said of the Russian retaliatory strike. Behind the scenes, though, the CIA was scrambling to determine the origins.

Once again we see the common thread: contrary to BroSints’ performative gung ho chauvinism, the real movers and shakers are scrupulous and smart enough to fear Russia’s wrath.

Though it’s besides the central point, this was an eye-opening revelation indeed:

"The CIA learned with the attack on the Crimea bridge that Zelensky either didn't have complete control over his own military or didn't want to know of certain actions," says the military intelligence official.

After the foolhardy drone attack on the Kremlin in the center of Moscow, the article notes that even Poland had begun warning the CIA that Ukraine was, in essence, a refractory mad dog:

A senior Polish government official told Newsweek that it might be impossible to convince Kyiv to abide by the non-agreement it made to keep the war limited. "In my humble opinion, the CIA fails to understand the nature of the Ukrainian state and the reckless factions that exist there," says the Polish official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly.

This is quite interesting for the following reason. Firstly it could explain Poland’s own later distancing from Kiev, the fruits of which we’re seeing now. Even brazen Poland may have started getting cold feet after they realized that Ukraine’s entire MO would likely revolve around trying to rope Poland into WW3. Not only were there several missile attacks on Polish territory for which Ukraine tried to frame Russia, but there were increasing reports in recent weeks from Russian intel sources that Ukraine intended to escalate this plan in the near future.

It’s clear that Poland has recently seemed to have a big shift vis a vis Ukraine—the turning point was several months back after the failed NATO summit and Zelensky’s subsequent disrespectful rhetoric. That is when Duda openly called Ukraine a “drowning man that would pull everyone down with him.” It all went down hill from there.

But it could also explain the US’s new cold posture and seeming snub of Ukraine. For instance, many are currently complaining that the US has $4B drawdown authority funds remaining yet they’ve announced no further funding will be allotted. This mysteriously comes on the heels of repeated Ukrainian strikes to sensitive targets in Crimea, as well as senseless attacks on Belgorod. Could the CIA have finally seen the light, preached earlier by Poland, and perhaps convinced the Biden administration that this mad dog is getting too unhinged to continue safely supporting? It could at least have something to do with it, if not be entirely responsible for the cold stance switch.

In fact, this is suggested by the very next paragraph in the article:

In response, the senior U.S. defense intelligence official stressed the delicate balance the Agency must maintain in its many roles, saying: "I hesitate to say that the CIA has failed." But the official said sabotage attacks and cross border fighting created a whole new complication and continuing Ukrainian sabotage "could have disastrous consequences."

As one can see, Ukraine’s recalcitrant flaunting of the ‘unspoken rules’ could have finally contributed to making the US realize that it was suicidal to continue supporting such a brazenly fractious mad dog whose sole intention has clearly become to embroil the world in WW3 as a last ditch escape from its own self-sealed fate.

In an absolutely demonstrative twist of irony, the comments section under the Newsweek article is filled with the very types of shallow-brained people who inspired my own writeup to begin with. Despite reading the exact pinpoint refutation of their own delusions, they still found the gall to comment things like: “And what would Putin do if US violated his “red lines”?”—implying again that Russia is somehow weak, and the US is this caricaturized unstoppable superpower which owes no compromise or concession to anyone. To such people with utterly shallow and hare-brained understandings of international relations and geopolitics: I beg you, leave your basements, go read a book sometime. Learn how the real world functions. It’s not a one dimensional comic book as you imagine. Believe me, no one in the entire world who actually operates within the halls of power of any major country believes that Russia is some sort of limp pushover to be laughed at and whose red lines are to be ignored. This sort of characterization only exists in the 12 year old minds of videogame addicts who moonlight as military analysts on Twitter. It’s also sometimes done as mere bravado, or a show of grandstanding by two-bit punks like Lindsey Graham on TV—but the tone “behind the scenes” remains in stark contrast to the “character” they portray in their laughable put-ons for the CNN peanut gallery.

Ultimately though, this Newsweek article should serve as further proof to brainwashed pro-UA supporters that this really is a proxy war between two giants, with Ukraine merely being a pawn stuck in the middle, whose own infant squalls are ignored in favor of Russia’s far weightier demarches. That should serve as a wake up call for Ukrainians: you are merely being used as disposable puppets in a geopolitical Great Game. And when that game is done, the actual players will shake hands and move on to the next contest while you will be left as the detritus to be ‘swept up’, like the trash and fast-food wrappers strewing the stadium grounds after a big match.

No matter how hard you try, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of lives of your own people you throw away, you will never become that Big Player on the stage that you were induced and gaslighted into thinking you could become. The only chance at survival you stand is to join the only one of the two Big Players which actually cares for you and views you as a close blood relative, rather than as a soggy rag to blow snot into then discard.

As a last point. I actually predicted much of this long ago, at the start of this year. In one of my earliest reports I wrote how when things would begin to really go down hill for Ukraine, Zelensky would opt for increasingly dramatic actions that would be more threats to his own handlers and sponsors, rather than to Russia. That’s because he knows Ukraine balances on a fulcrum and has the power to cause a wider global war between the two blocs to erupt. So I had proposed that when his back would be against the wall, Zelensky would escalate in such a way as to increasingly bring a wider war closer as a threat: “If you don’t give me what I need—arms and money—I will pull you into the war with me.”

This could very well be one of the reasons the US has decided to pull the plug on Ukraine now. Seeing no other options remaining, they may have been bothered by some of the recent rhetoric, knowing where such unchecked recklessness could lead. For instance, weeks ago after killing Ilya Kiva near Moscow, the Ukrainian SBU head promised big “surprises” for 2024, with the crowning achievement to be some kind of strike that he said would be a “needle to the heart” of Russia:

This could very well be a threat of some major assassination as a final logical escalatory precipice, whether of Putin or some other leading figure in Russia. The CIA may have read the internal signals in this direction and decided that the point of no return had finally come in supporting this ‘mad dog’, and if the US doesn’t put the brakes on now, it would be dragged into Zelensky’s existential trap.

The other elephant in the room is that such findings as those in this article naturally lead to people wondering whether the entire conflict is just one orchestrated and well-choreographed dance between “two sides of the same coin”. This cleaves to the age old conspiracy theories about Russia and the US both being under some manner of ‘globalist control’, and merely being played off each other as pawns to fool us into some grand theatrical spectacle.

This would once more be a fairly uninformed reading of the situation. Typically, such views sprout from people who are only capable of skimming the surface, judging conflicts and developments through very simplistic ‘broad stroke’ lenses. These are the people that subsist on “either/or” and other binary style reductions of everything. Their minds are usually not capable of grasping nuance, or sometimes they’re simply surface-scraping because their lives are too busy to really dig into highly complex situations to truly understand them.

In this case, Russia and the US’s informal ‘secret handshakes’ certainly does not equate to their being part of some grand charade to defraud the world together, or that Putin is a secret mole for [insert globalist clan here]. To come to that conclusion is to admit one’s ignorance of history, and how these things really work. This is standard operating procedure for any sort of sensitive geopolitical entanglement and is merely characteristic of the true behind-the-scenes statecraft that underlies the surface level gloss the majority of people ingest via CNN and such outlets. Such ‘handshakes’ represent simple basic diplomatic statecraft, courtesy, and precaution in the form of scrupulous risk-hedging and due diligence, nothing more than that.

With that said, this alone doesn’t preclude larger conspiracies of secret collusion between large, ostensibly adversarial nations—I’m simply stating that this specific instance would not qualify as exemplary of that. There are many other actual examples, but that’s beyond the scope of this article.

But as always, one must also remember that there are corridors within corridors in each organization, and there are groups within the CIA operating independently—and even antithetically—to the parent organization just as the CIA may itself be operating against the wider interests of the US itself. So ultimately, we’re still only hearing one side of the story, which happens to be the side they want us to hear.

---

Your support is invaluable. If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate if you subscribed to a monthly/yearly pledge to support my work, so that I may continue providing you with detailed, incisive reports like this one.

Alternatively, you can tip here: Tip Jar

---