Full text of the paywalled article:
During a recent visit to Washington â the most high-level by a Russian official since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 â Kremlin envoy Kirill Dmitriev heaped praise on Donald Trumpâs efforts to end the Ukraine war.
âPresident Trumpâs administration has made tremendous progressâ toward peace, Dmitriev said, and moreover, has âstopped World War III from happening.â
In response, an indignant Michael McFaul, the hawkish former US ambassador to Russia, chided what he called âhyperbolic threats about World War III,â which he dismissed as âcomplete nonsense.â
While Dmitrievâs claim of Trumpâs âtremendous progressâ on peace in Ukraine may be premature, his invocation of World War III does not seem so objectionable in light of new revelations about how Trumpâs predecessor, Joe Biden, escalated the conflict.
According to a lengthy account in the New York Times, sourced to top US, Ukrainian, and NATO officials, the US military under Biden effectively ran the Ukrainian militaryâs fight against Russian forces.
The US âpartnershipâ with Ukraine, the Timesâ Adam Entous reports, âwas the backbone of Ukrainian military operations.â At a U.S. military command center in Wiesbaden, Germany, US military officer planned Ukraineâs battlefield operations, selected Ukrainian targets, and fed Ukrainian soldiers the âprecise targeting informationâ to carry out strikes. As one European intelligence chief put it, the US was âpart of the kill chain.â
Under the kill chainâs modus operandi, âthe Americans found it and the Ukrainians destroyed it.â Yet with the US directly involved in killing Russian soldiers, a âfraught linguistic debateâ emerged: âwas it unduly provocative to call targets âtargetsââ? A US military commander, Maj. Gen. Timothy D. Brown, âsolvedâ the debate:
The locations of Russian forces would be âpoints of interest.â Intelligence on airborne threats would be âtracks of interest.â âIf you ever get asked the question, âDid you pass a target to the Ukrainians?â you can legitimately not be lying when you say, âNo, I did not,ââ one U.S. official explained.
With this semantic ploy, the US continued targeting Russians. And contrary to Michael McFaulâs semantic objection to the Kremlin envoyâs warning of World War III, the Biden administration harbored the same fears. To make the case for HIMARS missile systems, US General Christopher Cavoli argued that âwith HIMARS, they can fight like we can, and thatâs how they will start to beat the Russians.â Entous describes the ensuing deliberation in Washington:
At the White House, Mr. Biden and his advisers weighed that argument against fears that pushing the Russians would only lead Mr. Putin to panic and widen the war. When the generals requested HIMARS, one official recalled, the moment felt like âstanding on that line, wondering, if you take a step forward, is World War III going to break out?â
In other words, the Biden administration took escalatory steps in its remote war against Russian forces despite being aware that they might trigger World War III. And on the escalation ladder, HIMARS were far from the only step.
Initially, to âblunt the risk of Russian retaliation against N.A.T.O. partners,â US targets were confined to areas inside Ukraine. As one senior US official explained: âOur message to the Russians was, âThis war should be fought inside Ukraine.ââ But after a Ukrainian counteroffensive faltered and the Russians continued to advance in 2024, the Biden team was âforced to keep crossing its own red lines simply to keep the Ukrainians afloat.â This includes deploying US military advisers close to the front lines, providing Ukraine with long-range ATACMs missiles, and then letting Ukraine use those ATACMs for strikes deep into Russian territory.
âThe unthinkable had become real,â Entous writes. âThe United States was now woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil.â And with the Kremlin undoubtedly aware that the US was crossing its own red lines to help kill Russian soldiers, the Biden administration placed all its bets on the prospect that Russian President Vladimir Putin would respond with restraint, and not carry out reciprocal action.
Entous also newly confirms that Bidenâs last-minute decision to authorize ATACMs strikes into Russia was motivated by political considerations, not military reality. After âTrump won ⊠the fear came rushing inâ at the White House, Entous writes. âIn his last, lame-duck weeks, Mr. Biden made a flurry of moves to stay the course, at least for the moment, and shore up his Ukraine project.â
As part of that bid to âshore upâ Bidenâs pet proxy war, US officials repeatedly pressured Kyiv to send younger Ukrainians off to fight. Before the Ukrainian draft age was lowered from 27 to 25, Cavoli implored his Ukrainian military chief Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi to âget your 18-year-olds in the game.â Driving through Kyiv, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin âwas struck ⊠by the sight of so many men in their 20s, almost none of them in uniform.â Accordingly, in early 2025, âAustin pressed [Ukrainian president Volodymyr] Zelensky to take the bigger, bolder step and begin drafting 18-year-olds.â Entous captures the ensuing exchange:
To which Mr. Zelensky shot back, according to an official who was present, âWhy would I draft more people? We donât have any equipment to give them.â âAnd your generals are reporting that your units are undermanned,â the official recalled Mr. Austin responding. âThey donât have enough soldiers for the equipment they have.â
That was the perennial standoff:
In the Ukrainiansâ view, the Americans werenât willing to do what was necessary to help them prevail. In the Americansâ view, the Ukrainians werenât willing to do what was necessary to help themselves prevail.
The American account is disingenuous. As Austin, Biden, Jake Sullivan and other administration officials made clear, their aim was not to help Ukraine prevail, but to use Ukraine for a âstrategic defeatâ of Russia that would âweakenâ its ânational power,â or even force Vladimir Putinâs ouster.
An honest appraisal of Bidenâs Ukraine policy was recently offered by David Ignatius, a Washington Post columnist close to Bidenâs inner circle and supportive of their proxy war. The war in Ukraine, Ignatius wrote, âwas a sensible, cold-blooded strategy for the United States â to attrit an adversary at low cost to America, while Ukraine was paying the butcherâs bill.â
Ignatiusâ assessment requires a qualification. As the Times account newly underscores, the Biden administration was âcold-bloodedâ not only for letting Ukraine pay the âbutcherâs billâ in the form of hundreds of thousands of deaths. It was also cold-blooded toward the entire planet: from afar, running a kill chain that took the lives of many Russians, and risked World War III in the process.
đ€ So itâs ok for Russia to take them over?
Should Russia have allowed the US to continue to use its decades-long salami tactics project until it succeeded in balkanizing it or re-vassalizing it? The US wanted this war to happen, in the hopes of it causing Russiaâs collapse.
The blueprint of regime change operations: How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
It was apparent ok to take over Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Palestine, among others. Why would Ukraine be any different⊠Oh right, skin colour.