By Thomas Neuburger
Much of the U.S. foreign policy discussion is taken up with Russia: How great a threat is Russia to the U.S.? Have we over- or under-demonized Vladimir Putin? Is supporting the Ukraine War vital to American interests? And most importantly, if we get into a war with Russia, is that good or bad?
But perhaps the most critical question is one not being asked: Are we already at war with Russia?
I think we may be.
As proof, consider a recent exclusive report in the New York Times, a long piece titled “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine” (archived here). It’s sourced to multiple insiders and stuffed with detail about diplomacy and year-by-year fighting. But rather than discuss those details, I’d like to focus on two more meta aspects:
What does our stunning degree of involvement imply?
Why was the piece written?
An American War
The implications of the Times revelations are discussed in a Twitter thread by Tymofiy Mylovanov, a Ukrainian economist and former government minister under President Zelensky.
Mylovanov writes this about the article (emphasis and paragraphing mine):
NYT reports Ukrainian HIMARS strikes on Russia were directly coordinated from a U.S. military base in Germany. This reveals Ukraine’s dependence on U.S. support was far deeper than I realized. 0/ In 2022, the U.S. built a command center in Wiesbaden. It gave coordinates, controlled every HIMARS launch, and delivered $66.5B in weapons. The strikes on Russian bases, Crimea, and even inside Russia—none of it happened without American hands. 1/ NYT: CIA, NSA, DIA worked next to Ukrainian officers. Every HIMARS launch needed a U.S. key card. Ukraine couldn’t fire without American approval. 2/ NYT: The U.S. gave exact coordinates for strikes on Russia’s 58th Army HQ, Sevastopol, and Crimea bases.Russian generals were killed, warships pulled back, and missile stockpiles were destroyed. 3/ NYT: Washington sent $66.5B in weapons: 38 HIMARS, 272 howitzers, 10,000 Javelins, 3 Patriot systems, and over 500M rounds. This stock powered Ukraine’s push on Kherson, Kharkiv, and Crimea. 4/ NYT: In 2024, Biden lifted a ban. Ukraine could now strike targets inside Russia, near Kharkiv. A 50-mile zone opened.The CIA helped plan a drone strike 290 miles into Russian territory. 5/ Operation Lunar Hail: The U.S. helped coordinate 100+ ATACMS strikes in Crimea, NYT. Russian ships and depots were destroyed.The Black Sea Fleet repositioned to avoid further hits. 6/ Then Ukraine crossed Putin’s line: it used U.S. weapons inside Russia. Washington didn’t stop it. Disruption in Russian rear took priority over sticking to old rules, NYT. 7/ NYT: Now, every CIA-backed strike inside Russia needs special White House approval. The red lines still shift—but slowly. 8/ NYT: By late 2024, 36 U.S. military advisers were in Kyiv. The ban on boots on the ground ended—not by declaration, but by deployment. 9/ Ukraine launched an ATACMS strike on the Kerch Bridge. The U.S. had advised against it. The attack caused damage but didn’t disable the bridge, NYT. 10X
It’s hard not to see this as direct U.S. military involvement in war operations against Russia. We aren’t just sending supplies. For example, it's hard to read this…
Every HIMARS launch needed a U.S. key card. Ukraine couldn’t fire without American approval.
…and not think we too are at war. That Russia’s not returning the favor doesn’t change that fact.
NYT: Under Biden the U.S. Could Have Won
Now consider this analysis of the Times report by journalist Alex Christoforou, a critic of U.S. support. Regardless of your view of the War, Christoforou is right, I think, in making the following points.
First, he supports the conclusion above: “[The] NYT article admits that this was more than proxy war between the US and Russia. It was as close as could be to an all out hot war between the two sides (US and Russia).”
Second, he sees this note of regret: “NYT … has decided that the US (under Biden) was victorious, IF not for the insubordinate Ukrainian Generals and ego of Zelensky.”
If you read the Times piece carefully, you’ll agree with Christoforou’s conclusion: The message of the story is that, had “the Partnership” of the title succeeded — that is, had Zelensky and his team followed American instructions — the war could have been won. This is not something most other analysts believe.
This article is clearly a major piece of reporting. But ultimately it’s a major messaging piece as well.
That the report was also deeply, officially sourced tells us much about how bitter the battle between the U.S. policy establishment and the Trump administration actually is. That’s a war on its own, and quite a serious one.
Comments