Neocons Preparing Their Exculpatory Escape Narrative From The US War On Russia

The Neocons, in collaboration with the US military and Intel Community, are preparing their exit narrative from the disastrous war on Russia. It largely amounts to blaming insubordinate Ukrainian generals and out of touch Brits for failing to follow US plans that were defeating the incompetent Russian military. This narrative is presented in a sprawling NYT article that you can read in its entirety here—warning, this sprawling article is difficult to wrap your head around:

The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine

This is the untold story of America’s hidden role in Ukrainian military operations against Russia’s invading armies.

First of all, I want to give credit to reader/commenters. Joe first drew attention to the article and, in particular, noted the deep, hands on involvement of the US in running the war, including providing not only weapons but targeting. This, of course, is why I always refer to the “US war on Russia.” That’s exactly what it is

America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood. … 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.

One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in Ukrainian operations. “They are part of the kill chain now,” he said.

I’m not sure who the author (Adam Entous) thinks didn’t understand that reality. We here at MIH certainly understood that—anyone who paid almost any amount of attention understood that this was an American war on Russia. Those who didn’t understand this, and haven’t understood that this was a US defeat, were self deluding. Alex Christophorou gets this exactly right:

Alex Christoforou @AXChristoforou

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).

NYT however is running cover for the Biden administration. When you read through this very long article, the conclusion is that the Biden administration and US military command were easily defeating Russia until...

1) The Ukraine Generals started acting up and disobeyed US orders.

2) Zelensky chased "big wins" for PR reasons, failing to follow US strategy.

3) Resulting in the 2023 counteroffensive 'failure.' Trust was broken between US and Ukraine.

4) What followed was the US keeping Ukraine in the game up to the US elections, by striking targets in Crimea and pre-2014 Russia.

5) Trump entered the WH and decided to wind the war down, handing Russia the win.

"History Is Written by the Victors."

In this case the NYT has decided that the US (under Biden) was victorious, IF not for the insubordinate Ukrainian Generals and ego of Zelensky. Trump will be blamed for the end result capitulation.

The article 100% explains why NATO and the Europeans still believe that they can win this war. Peak delusion and propaganda.

5:48 AM · Mar 31, 2025

Commenter Cassander has written a fairly lengthy summary/review of the article, as has Larry Johnson this morning:

New York Times Fantasy Tale of Ukraine’s Almost Great Victory Over Russia

LJ discusses his article and related issues (including Trump’s foolish remarks over the weekend) with Judge Nap this morning—as usual the title doesn’t indicate the full depth of the discussion. Highly recommended:

Larry Johnson : Are the Brits Suicidal Over Ukraine?

Here are my brief takes.

First of all, the article’s consistent theme is of Russian ineptitude—always wrongfooted by American military prowess. If fully accepts absurd casualty figures that grossly inflate Russian losses, and minimize Ukrainian losses. Russia has suffered serious losses, and will not soon forgive Anglo-Zionist perfidy.

Another fundamental factor that isn’t even mentioned is that Russia was not prepared for a full scale invasion of an enormous country like Ukraine, which had a huge military of its own with extensive NATO support. The initial Russian advance toward Kiev was designed to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table—and to that extent was a success. But when the Anglo-Zionists stepped in to thwart peace and promised full backing to Ukraine, Russia withdrew from the Kiev region and settled down to a war of attrition while building up its military for a full scale war.

The article portrays the Russian withdrawal from Kiev as a great defeat for Russia. That is a recurrent theme in the article—Russian withdrawals, which were always designed to minimize casualties, attrit Ukrainian forces, and bide time while fully trained Russian forces were being built up. These withdrawals—from Kiev, from Kharkov, from west bank Kherson—were all conducted with great professionalism and minimal losses. What they illustrate is the flexibility of Russian military thinking, as opposed to what the Anglo-Zionist West supposed was hide bound Soviet era thinking. Here’s a dead giveaway for that fundamental misconception:

In March, their assault on Kyiv stalling, the Russians reoriented their ambitions, and their war plan, surging additional forces east and south — a logistical feat the Americans thought would take months. It took two and a half weeks.

In other words, realizing that the Anglo-Zionists were intent on an existential war, the Russians accurately assessed that they weren’t yet prepared for war on that scale and decided on a war of attrition that would begin with a defense of Russian minorities in Eastern Ukraine. The Russian forces that were committed were smaller than the Ukrainian military and conducted flexible operations after initial advances into accessible regions.

Another omission is the extent that Russian innovation has—relatively quickly—been able to neutralize each new escalation and each new wonder weapon deployment by the US military. This occurred without Russian attacks on NATO intel gathering assets, ISR. What is also omitted in this regard is the extent to which American and other NATO personnel were not only directing the war remotely but were on the ground in Ukraine directing and operating weapons systems.

Lastly, the article blames the Ukrainian defense of fortress cities—which the Russians are still in the careful process of reducing while minimizing casualties—and the disastrously failed offensive in summer 2023. If you read between the lines, however, you’ll see that the US is still claiming that with a few planning tweaks that offensive could have succeeded against the Surovikin line. Nonsense. At the same time, the author—citing US military sources by name—lauds the US ATACMS attacks on Crimea and some other sites—including US attacks inside Russia—which have never really amounted to more than pinpricks, with no significant successes.

As I said, this is a sprawling article. It’s difficult to quickly address all the misdirection, CYA, narratives. However, let me close with this thought. This article is a clear signal that the US military and Intel Community remain unregenerate. If Trump is serious and sincere about ending this disastrous war and resetting our relations with Russia and its allies—which I have concluded he is not at this point—the way to do this is NOT to get involved in foolish military adventures in the Middle East. Trump should be preparing for mounting rebellion at home. It’s not clear to me that his foreign policy strategy rests on sound principles. It’s not just overextension in the Middle East, but the very idea of triangulation against China using Russia while attempting to retain influence in Ukraine. Those days are past. Cleaning the Augean stables of the US NatSec establishment—and especially the Intel Community—is the task that he urgently needs to address without delay.