NYT reveals US direct involvement in Ukraine war.
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Super secret Task Force Dragon, "unknown to the general public deployed to Europe"
Problem is it was announced Feb 16 2022 that they were being deployed to Europe.
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7054344/soldiers-deploy-europe-support-joint-task-force-dragon
Anyone who thought all those survelance flights around Belarus, Ukraine, russia and the Black Sea were just training missions are naive.
Here is a video of all openly tracked flights last year from August until December.
The US isn't the only country providing intelligence by the way, pretty much every NATO or European country with surveillance aircraft or interception systems are supplying intelligence.
France has openly said they will keep supplying intelligence.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/international...haring-with-ukraine-not-affected-by-us-freeze
Problem is it was announced Feb 16 2022 that they were being deployed to Europe.
https://www.dvidshub.net/image/7054344/soldiers-deploy-europe-support-joint-task-force-dragon
Anyone who thought all those survelance flights around Belarus, Ukraine, russia and the Black Sea were just training missions are naive.
Here is a video of all openly tracked flights last year from August until December.
France has openly said they will keep supplying intelligence.
https://www.rfi.fr/en/international...haring-with-ukraine-not-affected-by-us-freeze
Last edited:
The US literally organised, funded and executed the coup in Ukraine that started this whole mess in 2014 and have been intimately involved the entire time. The only people who are surprised by this... revelation...are the people who still unironically read the New York Times.
Good.
The war in Ukraine is at an inflection point, with President Trump seeking rapprochement with the Russian leader, Vladimir V. Putin, and pressing for an end to the fighting.
But for nearly three years before Mr. Trump’s return to power, the United States and Ukraine were joined in an extraordinary partnership of intelligence, strategy, planning and technology whose evolution and inner workings have been known only to a small circle of American and allied officials.
With remarkable transparency, the Pentagon has offered a public accounting of the $66.5 billion in weaponry it has supplied to Ukraine. But a New York Times investigation reveals that America’s involvement in the war was far deeper than previously understood. The secret partnership both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.
Here are five takeaways from the investigation.
A U.S. base in Wiesbaden, Germany, supplied the Ukrainians with the coordinates of Russian forces on their soil.
The idea behind the partnership was that America’s close cooperation with Ukraine would compensate for Russia’s vast advantages in manpower and weaponry. To guide the Ukrainians as they deployed their ever-more-sophisticated arsenal, the Americans created an operation called Task Force Dragon.
The secret center of the partnership was at the U.S. Army garrison in Wiesbaden, Germany. Each morning, U.S. and Ukrainian military officers set targeting priorities — Russian units, pieces of equipment or infrastructure. American and coalition intelligence officers searched satellite imagery, radio emissions and intercepted communications to find Russian positions. Task Force Dragon then gave the Ukrainians the coordinates so they could shoot at them.
Military officials worried that it might be unduly provocative to call the targets “targets.” Instead they were referred to as “points of interest.”
U.S. intelligence and artillery helped Ukraine quickly turn the tide against the Russian invasion.
In spring 2022, the Biden administration agreed to send High Mobility Artillery Systems, or HIMARS, which used satellite-guided rockets for strikes up to 50 miles distant.
In the war’s first year, the Ukrainians were extremely dependent on the Americans for intelligence, and Task Force Dragon vetted and oversaw virtually every HIMARS strike.
The strikes caused Russian casualty rates to soar, and Ukraine’s 2022 counteroffensive was largely successful: By December, the Ukrainians held an unlikely, David-versus-Goliath upper hand against their Russian foe.
The Biden administration kept moving its red lines.
From the first, administration officials sought to lay down a red line: America was not fighting Russia; it was helping Ukraine. Still, they worried that steps taken to accomplish that might provoke Mr. Putin to attack N.A.T.O. targets or perhaps make good on his nuclear threats. Even as the administration developed an ever-greater tolerance of risk to help Ukraine meet the evolving threat, many of the most potentially provocative steps were taken in secret.
- Easing a prohibition against American boots on Ukrainian ground, Wiesbaden was allowed to put about a dozen military advisers in Kyiv. To avoid drawing public attention to their presence, the Pentagon initially called them “subject matter experts.” Later the team was expanded, to about three dozen, and the military advisers were eventually allowed to travel to Ukrainian command posts closer to the fighting.
- In 2022, the U.S. Navy was authorized to share targeting information for Ukrainian drone strikes on warships just beyond the territorial waters of Russian-annexed Crimea. The C.I.A. was allowed to support Ukrainian operations within Crimean waters; that fall, the spy agency covertly helped Ukrainian drones strike Russian warships in the port of Sevastopol.
- In January 2024, U.S. and Ukrainian military officers in Wiesbaden jointly planned a campaign — using coalition-supplied long-range missiles, along with Ukrainian drones — to attack about 100 Russian military targets across Crimea. The campaign, named Operation Lunar Hail, largely succeeded in forcing the Russians to pull equipment, facilities and forces in Crimea back to the Russian mainland.
The hardest red line was the Russian border. But in spring 2024, to protect the northern city of Kharkiv against a Russian assault, the administration authorized the creation of an “ops box” — a zone of Russian territory within which U.S. officers in Wiesbaden could provide the Ukrainians with precise coordinates. The box’s first iteration extended across a wide swath of Ukraine’s northern border. The box was expanded after North Korea sent troops to help fight the Ukrainians’ incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. The U.S. military was later allowed to enable missile strikes in an area of southern Russia where the Russians staged forces and equipment for their offensive in eastern Ukraine.
Longstanding policy barred the C.I.A. from providing intelligence on targets on Russian soil. But the C.I.A. could request “variances,” carve-outs to support strikes for specific objectives. Intelligence had identified a vast munitions depot in Toropets, 290 miles north of the Ukrainian border. On Sept. 18, 2024, a swarm of drones slammed into the munitions depot. The blast, as powerful as a small earthquake, opened a crater the width of a football field. Later, the C.I.A. was allowed to enable Ukrainian drone strikes in southern Russia to try to slow advances in eastern Ukraine.
Political disagreements in Ukraine contributed to the 2023 counteroffensive’s collapse.
The 2023 counteroffensive was meant to build momentum after the first year’s triumphs. But after the partners held war games in Wiesbaden and agreed on a strategy, the plan ran headlong into Ukrainian politics.
The Ukrainian armed forces chief, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, embraced the plan, whose centerpiece was an assault in the direction of the southern city of Melitopol that would cut off Russian supply lines. But his rival and subordinate, Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky, had his own plan — to impale Russian forces in the occupied eastern city of Bakhmut. The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, sided with him and divided up the ammunition and forces between two main fronts instead of one. The Ukrainians never did reclaim Bakhmut, and within months, the counteroffensive ended in failure. Russia now had the upper hand.
Nothing in the article seems particularly new.
It seems like some shitty framing from the Times.
Convergence Calling
JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER
MAR 31, 2025
You’re going to see what a truly consequential span of weeks, looks like, as Western Civ goes into full churn on April’s doorstep. Remember, TS Eliot called it the “cruelest month.” Too many uncomfortable things are converging, too many ongoing operations are unwinding, too many tensions are breaking.
The conclusion of “Joe Biden’s” Ukraine War fiasco looms. You can tell because The New York Times published a gigantic piece Sunday detailing how the Pentagon and the CIA actually ran all of Ukraine’s tactical operations out of a base in Wiesbaden, Germany — after building a colossal Ukraine war machine post our 2014 color revolution in Kiev. Since the very start of the hot war in 2022, we did all the targeting for the weapons we gave them and planned their every move. What a surprise! (Not.)
The motive behind all that, as conceived by US neo-cons and NATO neo-morons, was to “weaken” Russia, bust it up, and seize its resources. All the sanctions piled on only induced Russia into an import-replacement campaign that actually strengthened its economy, while the war led to a revolution in Russian war-fighting tactics and advanced weaponry. Now, the whole thing is ending in Ukraine’s defeat and the West’s humiliation.
The Times could have published this in 2023-24, but it would have been a major embarrassment for “Joe Biden” and his shadow managers moving into the election. They put it out just now because the jig is up and the paper desperately needs to pretend that it’s ahead of events to preserve the last shreds of its credibility.
Mr. Trump, the uber-realist, knows that the Russians are going to roll up in Ukraine this spring and there is increasingly not much that can be done about that, except to try to put the best face on it — which is, that it wasn’t his war. As long as the coke freak Zelensky remains in charge, Ukraine will be negotiation-unworthy, as the Russian phrase goes. So, US-Russia peace talks were largely diplomatic showbiz. Both Putin and Mr. Trump were painfully aware of this, and hence, Mr. Trump’s latest performative bluster about “more sanctions” will probably not amount to anything.
And also hence, the synchronized idiocy on display in France, Germany, and the UK. They were all-in on the neo-con scheme that is now falling apart and its failure has driven them plumb crazy. As the US drops out of the stupid proxy war, they declare their intention to take it from here and go beat-up Russia. Their war-drums are teaspoons beating on so many quiches.
Soon-to-be chancellor Friedrich Merz proposes an 800-billion-Euro debt spree to finance the re-arming of Germany, which, just now, is utterly incapable of war. He is insane. German industry is collapsing from a lack of affordable natural gas (as arranged by “Joe Biden” blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, danke schön). Turning Volkswagen factories to missile production will not help the German people one bit. It probably will remind them about the Weimar hyper-inflation, though.
Macron pledges to put French boots on the ground in Ukraine. Ain’t gonna happen. Today, his stooge judiciary found political rival Marine LePen guilty of a Mickey Mouse offense in order to bar her from running against him in the next election. Ain’t gonna work. He will provoke the biggest national uprising since the Bastille. His government will be too busy putting down French Revolution 2.0 to play war games in history’s graveyard of armies. Maybe he’ll try nukes. I’m sure that’ll work — if you’re eager to see Russian hypersonic “hazelnuts” rain down on the Île-de-France.
And then, there is the amazing idiot PM Keir Starmer in the UK, calling on his “coalition of the willing” to step up and intervene in the lost cause that is Ukraine. How many hands went up on that call? For practical purposes, the Brits have no war-fighting capacity whatsoever, and no resources for generating such capacity. And, anyway, they are facing some dreadful combo of a civil war / internal jihad against their own indigenous population, plus an economic collapse cherry-on-top.
In short, Europe has so many incipient existential problems that the whole story is about to shift its focus from the already-sealed fate of Ukraine to the very dark prospects for the core nations of Old-World Western Civ. I wouldn’t plan a vacation there this year.
Meanwhile, expect a pile-up of consequence in our own sore-beset USA in the upcoming cruelest month. Today, the DOGE team visits the CIA. It could spell an end to decades of mad frolics emanating from that gigantic black box of black ops. Director John Ratcliffe has cordially invited Mr. Musk’s technicians and he is probably eager to discover exactly what mischief has been hidden from him by the immense, secretive, foul bureaucracy he lately assumed command over.
The Epstein materials recently recovered out of the FBI’s rogue New York offices of the agency are considered so critical by Director Patel that he assigned 1000 agents to review and process the docs full-time. That includes redacting names of many additional sex-trafficked children. Expect to see the release of a lot of that in the next thirty days with dire reverberations in the celebrity realms of politics, finance, and showbiz.
JudgeGate is moving toward its climax at the same time. Tuesday this week, Rep. Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the DC circuit’s lawfare offensive against Mr. Trump’s executive authority. It would be nice to hear from DC district judges James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, Beryl Howell, and Amir Ali, who have been zealously active in what looks like a coordinated lawfare campaign against the chief executive. Norm Eisen is not a judge, but he is the central conductor of the lawfare orchestra, and he has a bit of ‘splainin’ to do. One can even imagine something like a RICO referral emerge from that rather brazen operation. Anyway, the whole matter is going to land in the Supreme Court before April is out.
Also expect a lot of movement in the Covid-19 story coming out of the newly-reorganized CDC, NIH, FDA, NIAID, and other corners of the public health bureaucracy. Evidence is piling up fast of tragic and awful blowback from the Covid vaccine. There is too much to be ignored any longer and momentous decisions must follow, starting with taking the Pfizer and Moderna shots off-line. The entire regime of data collection, processing, and public release is about to change and the nation will be shocked by what gets disclosed.
Then there are the financial markets. They do not like the kind of shifts in public perception that return of consequence must bring. Gold alone is sending out a very vivid distress signal for everything else pretending to be an asset or a form of collateral. The equity markets have been wobbling for weeks. Look out below as the Easter eggs roll.
www.kunstler.com
JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER
MAR 31, 2025
You’re going to see what a truly consequential span of weeks, looks like, as Western Civ goes into full churn on April’s doorstep. Remember, TS Eliot called it the “cruelest month.” Too many uncomfortable things are converging, too many ongoing operations are unwinding, too many tensions are breaking.
The conclusion of “Joe Biden’s” Ukraine War fiasco looms. You can tell because The New York Times published a gigantic piece Sunday detailing how the Pentagon and the CIA actually ran all of Ukraine’s tactical operations out of a base in Wiesbaden, Germany — after building a colossal Ukraine war machine post our 2014 color revolution in Kiev. Since the very start of the hot war in 2022, we did all the targeting for the weapons we gave them and planned their every move. What a surprise! (Not.)
The motive behind all that, as conceived by US neo-cons and NATO neo-morons, was to “weaken” Russia, bust it up, and seize its resources. All the sanctions piled on only induced Russia into an import-replacement campaign that actually strengthened its economy, while the war led to a revolution in Russian war-fighting tactics and advanced weaponry. Now, the whole thing is ending in Ukraine’s defeat and the West’s humiliation.
The Times could have published this in 2023-24, but it would have been a major embarrassment for “Joe Biden” and his shadow managers moving into the election. They put it out just now because the jig is up and the paper desperately needs to pretend that it’s ahead of events to preserve the last shreds of its credibility.
Mr. Trump, the uber-realist, knows that the Russians are going to roll up in Ukraine this spring and there is increasingly not much that can be done about that, except to try to put the best face on it — which is, that it wasn’t his war. As long as the coke freak Zelensky remains in charge, Ukraine will be negotiation-unworthy, as the Russian phrase goes. So, US-Russia peace talks were largely diplomatic showbiz. Both Putin and Mr. Trump were painfully aware of this, and hence, Mr. Trump’s latest performative bluster about “more sanctions” will probably not amount to anything.
And also hence, the synchronized idiocy on display in France, Germany, and the UK. They were all-in on the neo-con scheme that is now falling apart and its failure has driven them plumb crazy. As the US drops out of the stupid proxy war, they declare their intention to take it from here and go beat-up Russia. Their war-drums are teaspoons beating on so many quiches.
Soon-to-be chancellor Friedrich Merz proposes an 800-billion-Euro debt spree to finance the re-arming of Germany, which, just now, is utterly incapable of war. He is insane. German industry is collapsing from a lack of affordable natural gas (as arranged by “Joe Biden” blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, danke schön). Turning Volkswagen factories to missile production will not help the German people one bit. It probably will remind them about the Weimar hyper-inflation, though.
Macron pledges to put French boots on the ground in Ukraine. Ain’t gonna happen. Today, his stooge judiciary found political rival Marine LePen guilty of a Mickey Mouse offense in order to bar her from running against him in the next election. Ain’t gonna work. He will provoke the biggest national uprising since the Bastille. His government will be too busy putting down French Revolution 2.0 to play war games in history’s graveyard of armies. Maybe he’ll try nukes. I’m sure that’ll work — if you’re eager to see Russian hypersonic “hazelnuts” rain down on the Île-de-France.
And then, there is the amazing idiot PM Keir Starmer in the UK, calling on his “coalition of the willing” to step up and intervene in the lost cause that is Ukraine. How many hands went up on that call? For practical purposes, the Brits have no war-fighting capacity whatsoever, and no resources for generating such capacity. And, anyway, they are facing some dreadful combo of a civil war / internal jihad against their own indigenous population, plus an economic collapse cherry-on-top.
In short, Europe has so many incipient existential problems that the whole story is about to shift its focus from the already-sealed fate of Ukraine to the very dark prospects for the core nations of Old-World Western Civ. I wouldn’t plan a vacation there this year.
Meanwhile, expect a pile-up of consequence in our own sore-beset USA in the upcoming cruelest month. Today, the DOGE team visits the CIA. It could spell an end to decades of mad frolics emanating from that gigantic black box of black ops. Director John Ratcliffe has cordially invited Mr. Musk’s technicians and he is probably eager to discover exactly what mischief has been hidden from him by the immense, secretive, foul bureaucracy he lately assumed command over.
The Epstein materials recently recovered out of the FBI’s rogue New York offices of the agency are considered so critical by Director Patel that he assigned 1000 agents to review and process the docs full-time. That includes redacting names of many additional sex-trafficked children. Expect to see the release of a lot of that in the next thirty days with dire reverberations in the celebrity realms of politics, finance, and showbiz.
JudgeGate is moving toward its climax at the same time. Tuesday this week, Rep. Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the DC circuit’s lawfare offensive against Mr. Trump’s executive authority. It would be nice to hear from DC district judges James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, Beryl Howell, and Amir Ali, who have been zealously active in what looks like a coordinated lawfare campaign against the chief executive. Norm Eisen is not a judge, but he is the central conductor of the lawfare orchestra, and he has a bit of ‘splainin’ to do. One can even imagine something like a RICO referral emerge from that rather brazen operation. Anyway, the whole matter is going to land in the Supreme Court before April is out.
Also expect a lot of movement in the Covid-19 story coming out of the newly-reorganized CDC, NIH, FDA, NIAID, and other corners of the public health bureaucracy. Evidence is piling up fast of tragic and awful blowback from the Covid vaccine. There is too much to be ignored any longer and momentous decisions must follow, starting with taking the Pfizer and Moderna shots off-line. The entire regime of data collection, processing, and public release is about to change and the nation will be shocked by what gets disclosed.
Then there are the financial markets. They do not like the kind of shifts in public perception that return of consequence must bring. Gold alone is sending out a very vivid distress signal for everything else pretending to be an asset or a form of collateral. The equity markets have been wobbling for weeks. Look out below as the Easter eggs roll.
Convergence Calling
“The current conflict between Europe and America is not reducible towards contrasting approaches towards Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” —Frank Furedi on Substack
www.kunstler.com
Ukraine Seeks Troop Deployment Discussion With Partners
Apr 03, 2025
Western military leaders will discuss the possible deployment of troops to Ukraine who would monitor a potential cease-fire in the conflict with Russian and be part of the country’s new security structure, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly video address.
“This is our starting point: the Ukrainian army must be strong enough, and on this foundation, the entire security architecture is built,” Zelenskyy said. “A meeting will take place in just a few days -- on Friday (April 4) -- with representatives of our partner states -- these will be military representatives.”
Zelenskyy met in Kyiv on April 1 with outgoing German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, saying that a "narrow circle of countries" is willing to send contingents.
The Ukrainian leader told a joint news conference with Baerbock that he was awaiting "more concrete" answers from allies on their readiness to participate.
France and Britain have expressed a willingness to send troops as part of a so-called coalition of the willing to monitor a potential cease-fire. But Russia has strongly opposed any deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine.
In his video address, Zelenskyy also said Ukraine has now shared “all the necessary information regarding Russia’s violations in the energy sector” with its US partners. He said there were strikes on April 1 in Kherson, including a Russian drone that targeted an energy facility and equipment “entirely deliberately and purposefully” and part of the city was left without electricity.
“We insist that every such violation must be documented and receive a response from our partners,” he said. “It is precisely these small details that add up to Russia’s major delays in the diplomatic process."
Zelenskyy referred to an agreement between Kyiv and Moscow not to strike each other's energy facilities. The agreement was announced by the White House on March 25 along with a cease-fire to allow navigation on the Black Sea.
Kyiv said the agreement on energy facilities would take effect immediately. Moscow, however, has said it would follow the partial lifting of sanctions pertaining to Russian companies and banks involved in the international food trade.
Germany announced a commitment to an additional 130 million euros ($140 million) in humanitarian aid and stabilization funds during Baerbock’s visit. The package will bring German assistance since the start of the Russian invasion to Ukraine to 7 billion euros, he said.
Zelenskyy thanked Germany for ensuring that its support for Ukraine remains predictable and systematic. The stability of support is one of the key factors in defending against Russian aggression, he said.
"It is the interruptions in supplies, disagreements between partners, and all signs of instability that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is highly counting on,” he said.
Russian troops launched a massive drone strike on Kharkiv on the night of April 1. Mayor Ihor Terekhov said 13 Shahed drones hit in the city, and at least eight people were injured.
"The consequences included the fire of two industrial buildings, and more than 10 private sector houses were damaged nearby," Terekhov said.
A Russian strike earlier on April 1 in the Zaporizhzhya region hit civilian infrastructure, killing one person, regional Governor Ivan Fedorov said.
oilprice.com
Apr 03, 2025
- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced a meeting with partner states to discuss the potential deployment of foreign troops to monitor a cease-fire and contribute to Ukraine's security architecture.
- Russia has opposed any deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine, while Ukraine has reported Russian attacks on its energy facilities and shared information about these violations with its US partners.
- Germany pledged additional humanitarian and stabilization funds to Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of consistent support in countering Russian aggression.
Western military leaders will discuss the possible deployment of troops to Ukraine who would monitor a potential cease-fire in the conflict with Russian and be part of the country’s new security structure, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly video address.
“This is our starting point: the Ukrainian army must be strong enough, and on this foundation, the entire security architecture is built,” Zelenskyy said. “A meeting will take place in just a few days -- on Friday (April 4) -- with representatives of our partner states -- these will be military representatives.”
Zelenskyy met in Kyiv on April 1 with outgoing German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, saying that a "narrow circle of countries" is willing to send contingents.
The Ukrainian leader told a joint news conference with Baerbock that he was awaiting "more concrete" answers from allies on their readiness to participate.
France and Britain have expressed a willingness to send troops as part of a so-called coalition of the willing to monitor a potential cease-fire. But Russia has strongly opposed any deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine.
In his video address, Zelenskyy also said Ukraine has now shared “all the necessary information regarding Russia’s violations in the energy sector” with its US partners. He said there were strikes on April 1 in Kherson, including a Russian drone that targeted an energy facility and equipment “entirely deliberately and purposefully” and part of the city was left without electricity.
“We insist that every such violation must be documented and receive a response from our partners,” he said. “It is precisely these small details that add up to Russia’s major delays in the diplomatic process."
Zelenskyy referred to an agreement between Kyiv and Moscow not to strike each other's energy facilities. The agreement was announced by the White House on March 25 along with a cease-fire to allow navigation on the Black Sea.
Kyiv said the agreement on energy facilities would take effect immediately. Moscow, however, has said it would follow the partial lifting of sanctions pertaining to Russian companies and banks involved in the international food trade.
Germany announced a commitment to an additional 130 million euros ($140 million) in humanitarian aid and stabilization funds during Baerbock’s visit. The package will bring German assistance since the start of the Russian invasion to Ukraine to 7 billion euros, he said.
Zelenskyy thanked Germany for ensuring that its support for Ukraine remains predictable and systematic. The stability of support is one of the key factors in defending against Russian aggression, he said.
"It is the interruptions in supplies, disagreements between partners, and all signs of instability that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is highly counting on,” he said.
Russian troops launched a massive drone strike on Kharkiv on the night of April 1. Mayor Ihor Terekhov said 13 Shahed drones hit in the city, and at least eight people were injured.
"The consequences included the fire of two industrial buildings, and more than 10 private sector houses were damaged nearby," Terekhov said.
A Russian strike earlier on April 1 in the Zaporizhzhya region hit civilian infrastructure, killing one person, regional Governor Ivan Fedorov said.
Ukraine Seeks Troop Deployment Discussion With Partners | OilPrice.com
Ukraine's President Zelenskyy announces a meeting with partner nations to discuss potential foreign troop deployment for cease-fire monitoring and security structure amid ongoing Russian aggression and attacks on energy infrastructure.
oilprice.com
Convergence Calling
JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER
MAR 31, 2025
You’re going to see what a truly consequential span of weeks, looks like, as Western Civ goes into full churn on April’s doorstep. Remember, TS Eliot called it the “cruelest month.” Too many uncomfortable things are converging, too many ongoing operations are unwinding, too many tensions are breaking.
The conclusion of “Joe Biden’s” Ukraine War fiasco looms. You can tell because The New York Times published a gigantic piece Sunday detailing how the Pentagon and the CIA actually ran all of Ukraine’s tactical operations out of a base in Wiesbaden, Germany — after building a colossal Ukraine war machine post our 2014 color revolution in Kiev. Since the very start of the hot war in 2022, we did all the targeting for the weapons we gave them and planned their every move. What a surprise! (Not.)
The motive behind all that, as conceived by US neo-cons and NATO neo-morons, was to “weaken” Russia, bust it up, and seize its resources. All the sanctions piled on only induced Russia into an import-replacement campaign that actually strengthened its economy, while the war led to a revolution in Russian war-fighting tactics and advanced weaponry. Now, the whole thing is ending in Ukraine’s defeat and the West’s humiliation.
The Times could have published this in 2023-24, but it would have been a major embarrassment for “Joe Biden” and his shadow managers moving into the election. They put it out just now because the jig is up and the paper desperately needs to pretend that it’s ahead of events to preserve the last shreds of its credibility.
Mr. Trump, the uber-realist, knows that the Russians are going to roll up in Ukraine this spring and there is increasingly not much that can be done about that, except to try to put the best face on it — which is, that it wasn’t his war. As long as the coke freak Zelensky remains in charge, Ukraine will be negotiation-unworthy, as the Russian phrase goes. So, US-Russia peace talks were largely diplomatic showbiz. Both Putin and Mr. Trump were painfully aware of this, and hence, Mr. Trump’s latest performative bluster about “more sanctions” will probably not amount to anything.
And also hence, the synchronized idiocy on display in France, Germany, and the UK. They were all-in on the neo-con scheme that is now falling apart and its failure has driven them plumb crazy. As the US drops out of the stupid proxy war, they declare their intention to take it from here and go beat-up Russia. Their war-drums are teaspoons beating on so many quiches.
Soon-to-be chancellor Friedrich Merz proposes an 800-billion-Euro debt spree to finance the re-arming of Germany, which, just now, is utterly incapable of war. He is insane. German industry is collapsing from a lack of affordable natural gas (as arranged by “Joe Biden” blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, danke schön). Turning Volkswagen factories to missile production will not help the German people one bit. It probably will remind them about the Weimar hyper-inflation, though.
Macron pledges to put French boots on the ground in Ukraine. Ain’t gonna happen. Today, his stooge judiciary found political rival Marine LePen guilty of a Mickey Mouse offense in order to bar her from running against him in the next election. Ain’t gonna work. He will provoke the biggest national uprising since the Bastille. His government will be too busy putting down French Revolution 2.0 to play war games in history’s graveyard of armies. Maybe he’ll try nukes. I’m sure that’ll work — if you’re eager to see Russian hypersonic “hazelnuts” rain down on the Île-de-France.
And then, there is the amazing idiot PM Keir Starmer in the UK, calling on his “coalition of the willing” to step up and intervene in the lost cause that is Ukraine. How many hands went up on that call? For practical purposes, the Brits have no war-fighting capacity whatsoever, and no resources for generating such capacity. And, anyway, they are facing some dreadful combo of a civil war / internal jihad against their own indigenous population, plus an economic collapse cherry-on-top.
In short, Europe has so many incipient existential problems that the whole story is about to shift its focus from the already-sealed fate of Ukraine to the very dark prospects for the core nations of Old-World Western Civ. I wouldn’t plan a vacation there this year.
Meanwhile, expect a pile-up of consequence in our own sore-beset USA in the upcoming cruelest month. Today, the DOGE team visits the CIA. It could spell an end to decades of mad frolics emanating from that gigantic black box of black ops. Director John Ratcliffe has cordially invited Mr. Musk’s technicians and he is probably eager to discover exactly what mischief has been hidden from him by the immense, secretive, foul bureaucracy he lately assumed command over.
The Epstein materials recently recovered out of the FBI’s rogue New York offices of the agency are considered so critical by Director Patel that he assigned 1000 agents to review and process the docs full-time. That includes redacting names of many additional sex-trafficked children. Expect to see the release of a lot of that in the next thirty days with dire reverberations in the celebrity realms of politics, finance, and showbiz.
JudgeGate is moving toward its climax at the same time. Tuesday this week, Rep. Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the DC circuit’s lawfare offensive against Mr. Trump’s executive authority. It would be nice to hear from DC district judges James Boasberg, Amy Berman Jackson, Tanya Chutkan, Beryl Howell, and Amir Ali, who have been zealously active in what looks like a coordinated lawfare campaign against the chief executive. Norm Eisen is not a judge, but he is the central conductor of the lawfare orchestra, and he has a bit of ‘splainin’ to do. One can even imagine something like a RICO referral emerge from that rather brazen operation. Anyway, the whole matter is going to land in the Supreme Court before April is out.
Also expect a lot of movement in the Covid-19 story coming out of the newly-reorganized CDC, NIH, FDA, NIAID, and other corners of the public health bureaucracy. Evidence is piling up fast of tragic and awful blowback from the Covid vaccine. There is too much to be ignored any longer and momentous decisions must follow, starting with taking the Pfizer and Moderna shots off-line. The entire regime of data collection, processing, and public release is about to change and the nation will be shocked by what gets disclosed.
Then there are the financial markets. They do not like the kind of shifts in public perception that return of consequence must bring. Gold alone is sending out a very vivid distress signal for everything else pretending to be an asset or a form of collateral. The equity markets have been wobbling for weeks. Look out below as the Easter eggs roll.
Convergence Calling
“The current conflict between Europe and America is not reducible towards contrasting approaches towards Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” —Frank Furedi on Substack
The toilet paper this shit is written on is now soaked in Russian vodka!
What is interesting is to consider whether the large volume of actual facts overcomes normal people's bullshit detector which allows some of the more subtle propagandist shit splattered to actually be palatable and believable. I think this is one cornerstone of Russian disinformation, 10% subconscious acceptance of propaganda when legitimized by 90% facts.
Last edited:
Will China Seal Zelensky’s Fate?
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's trip to Moscow doesn't bode well for a quick end to the war.
JAMES W. CARDEN
APR 01, 2025
Adam Entous’ “blockbuster” New York Times report confirmed what only a few of us reported only weeks into the war, that Washington has been a co-belligerent in the war in Ukraine in all but name.
In a widely neglected article for the Asia Times on April 19, 2022, I reported that,
…US involvement goes deeper than arms sales and intelligence sharing. A Pentagon official who requested anonymity told me it is “likely we have a limited footprint on the ground in Ukraine, but under Title 50, not Title 10,” meaning US intelligence operatives and paramilitaries – but not regular military.”
In the same report I quoted Bruce Fein, a former associate attorney general during the Reagan administration, who described the behavior of the US and its allies as “systematic or substantial violations of a neutral’s duties of impartiality and non-participation in the conflict.”
If nothing else, Entous’ report demonstrates the troubling extent of our co-belligerency in a war against nuclear-armed Russia, and inadvertently revealed the depths of deceit to which Joe Biden, Jake Sullivan, Lloyd Austin and Antony Blinken sunk to keep America’s involvement from public view.
Having started a war he clearly believes he was provoked* into fighting after being serially misled by France and Germany during the Minsk process (2015-2022) Russia’s Vladimir Putin is in no mood to compromise.
On March 27th, in a meeting in Murmansk with sailors from the nuclear submarine Arkhangelsk, Putin spoke about the state of the war, noting that:
We are gradually, not as quickly as some would like, but nevertheless persistently and confidently moving towards achieving all the goals declared at the beginning of this operation.
Along the entire line of combat contact, our troops have the strategic initiative. I said just recently: We will finish them off. There is reason to believe that we will finish them off.
Later on, Putin broached the idea of a new government in Ukraine “within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations.”
“In principle,” he continued, “it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine.”
In Putin’s view, the Zelensky regime is, thanks to its ties, and indeed reliance on, avowedly neo-Nazi militias within the country, unable and unwilling to act as a serious interlocutor on talks to end the war. As has been widely reported, Putin's recent comments about Zelensky have angered Donald Trump.
Another sign that the Russians are in this for the long haul is their ongoing effort to strengthen their partnership with China. Today, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and assistant foreign minister Liu Bin met with Putin, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and presidential aide Yury Ushakov in Moscow. Among other things, it was confirmed that Chinese president Xi Jinping will meet next month with Putin in Moscow to mark Victory Day, the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
In comments that ought to worry both Zelensky and Trump, Wang told the Russian media outlet RIA Novosti that while he viewed Trump’s push to end the war as “worth taking” he added that peace, in his view, was still “far away” and that “the causes of the crisis are extremely complex.”
He continued,
…We advocate eradicating the causes of the crisis through dialogue and negotiations, and ultimately achieving a fair, long-term, binding peace agreement acceptable to all parties involved.”
Trump’s dreams of a Nobel Prize will collide with a number of factors including China’s support for Russia; Putin’s view of Zelensky as illegitimate; and, not least, the reality on the ground—a reality that is starkly at odds with jejune narratives crafted by the Pentagon (then laundered through the New York Times) which claim Russia has lost upwards of 700,000 men and its economy is teetering on the precipice of catastrophe.
No evidence exists for such claims: In 2024, Russia’s economy grew by 4.1 percent, the EU’s economy grew by 1 percent; a realistic discussion about casualty rates can be found here.
In the end, Russia is winning the war and Putin’s demand for regime change in Kiev is one which Trump might accede to if he wants the fighting to end any time soon. If and when an honest account of this period is written, Zelensky will emerge not as the Churchill of his time but as Eastern Europe’s Diem; a vain leader held hostage to forces at home and abroad over which he has little control.
therealistreview.substack.com
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's trip to Moscow doesn't bode well for a quick end to the war.
JAMES W. CARDEN
APR 01, 2025
Adam Entous’ “blockbuster” New York Times report confirmed what only a few of us reported only weeks into the war, that Washington has been a co-belligerent in the war in Ukraine in all but name.
In a widely neglected article for the Asia Times on April 19, 2022, I reported that,
…US involvement goes deeper than arms sales and intelligence sharing. A Pentagon official who requested anonymity told me it is “likely we have a limited footprint on the ground in Ukraine, but under Title 50, not Title 10,” meaning US intelligence operatives and paramilitaries – but not regular military.”
In the same report I quoted Bruce Fein, a former associate attorney general during the Reagan administration, who described the behavior of the US and its allies as “systematic or substantial violations of a neutral’s duties of impartiality and non-participation in the conflict.”
If nothing else, Entous’ report demonstrates the troubling extent of our co-belligerency in a war against nuclear-armed Russia, and inadvertently revealed the depths of deceit to which Joe Biden, Jake Sullivan, Lloyd Austin and Antony Blinken sunk to keep America’s involvement from public view.
Having started a war he clearly believes he was provoked* into fighting after being serially misled by France and Germany during the Minsk process (2015-2022) Russia’s Vladimir Putin is in no mood to compromise.
On March 27th, in a meeting in Murmansk with sailors from the nuclear submarine Arkhangelsk, Putin spoke about the state of the war, noting that:
We are gradually, not as quickly as some would like, but nevertheless persistently and confidently moving towards achieving all the goals declared at the beginning of this operation.
Along the entire line of combat contact, our troops have the strategic initiative. I said just recently: We will finish them off. There is reason to believe that we will finish them off.
Later on, Putin broached the idea of a new government in Ukraine “within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations.”
“In principle,” he continued, “it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine.”
In Putin’s view, the Zelensky regime is, thanks to its ties, and indeed reliance on, avowedly neo-Nazi militias within the country, unable and unwilling to act as a serious interlocutor on talks to end the war. As has been widely reported, Putin's recent comments about Zelensky have angered Donald Trump.
Another sign that the Russians are in this for the long haul is their ongoing effort to strengthen their partnership with China. Today, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi and assistant foreign minister Liu Bin met with Putin, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and presidential aide Yury Ushakov in Moscow. Among other things, it was confirmed that Chinese president Xi Jinping will meet next month with Putin in Moscow to mark Victory Day, the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
In comments that ought to worry both Zelensky and Trump, Wang told the Russian media outlet RIA Novosti that while he viewed Trump’s push to end the war as “worth taking” he added that peace, in his view, was still “far away” and that “the causes of the crisis are extremely complex.”
He continued,
…We advocate eradicating the causes of the crisis through dialogue and negotiations, and ultimately achieving a fair, long-term, binding peace agreement acceptable to all parties involved.”
Trump’s dreams of a Nobel Prize will collide with a number of factors including China’s support for Russia; Putin’s view of Zelensky as illegitimate; and, not least, the reality on the ground—a reality that is starkly at odds with jejune narratives crafted by the Pentagon (then laundered through the New York Times) which claim Russia has lost upwards of 700,000 men and its economy is teetering on the precipice of catastrophe.
No evidence exists for such claims: In 2024, Russia’s economy grew by 4.1 percent, the EU’s economy grew by 1 percent; a realistic discussion about casualty rates can be found here.
In the end, Russia is winning the war and Putin’s demand for regime change in Kiev is one which Trump might accede to if he wants the fighting to end any time soon. If and when an honest account of this period is written, Zelensky will emerge not as the Churchill of his time but as Eastern Europe’s Diem; a vain leader held hostage to forces at home and abroad over which he has little control.
Will China Seal Zelensky’s Fate?
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's trip to Moscow doesn't bode well for a quick end to the war.
therealistreview.substack.com
Just curious if you folks get paid in rubles, US or Canadian $$$$$? Is it profitable? I mean with Tariffs and possibly a depression on the way, I may need a new side gig to keep my hunger for hot ladies satiated, so I may have to kiss a little Putin ass myself. LMAO
They only hire people who aren't functionally retarded so unfortunately that excludes you
That is not very nice, I am very offended! Now, can you answer the question: how are you paid, rubles, US or CAD currency?They only hire people who aren't functionally retarded so unfortunately that excludes you
I think the TERB krem trolls are paid in Timbits. Each time they make a mean post about Ukraine or NATO, Putin pats them on the head and gives them a Timbit.
Can you at least give me some hair?? This is even more offensive!
Please, take the PooBit out of your mouth and draw some hair on me, thank you.
New York Times Blockbuster Article Prepares Americans for Defeat in Ukraine
Ted Snider
April 04, 2025
A March 29 article on America’s involvement in the war in Ukraine in The New York Times by Adam Entous “reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.” “Understood” is a euphemism. It means the American and global public were lied to.
The article reveals that the war in Ukraine truly was, as former British prime minister Boris Johnson and U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio have already said, a proxy war against Russia. U.S. military and intelligence were involved in every stage of the war, including supplying the weapons, the training, the planning, the war-gaming, the intelligence and the targeting. They were involved in everything from the big picture to the minute detail: “A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.”
American military and intelligence provided “intelligence about Russian battlefield positions, movements and intentions.” “Every morning, officers recalled, the Ukrainians and Americans gathered to survey Russian weapons systems and ground forces and determine the ripest, highest-value targets.” When a “European intelligence chief” discovered how “deeply enmeshed” NATO was in the battlefield operations, he marveled that “They are part of the kill chain now.”
But none of this is really new. For those paying attention to the news, and not the propaganda and repeated assurances and talking points, this information was readily available. Even The New York Times had already reported much of it. The Entous piece adds many names and significant details, but it is not a revelation that the U.S. was not only supplying the Ukrainian armed forces the weapons but that it was feeding them the intelligence.
But beneath the supposed bombshell, important nuggets are exposed that deserve more attention. Though, again, not entirely new, the piece opens with the revelation – intended as dramatic narrative and not investigative journalism–that from early in the war, NATO troops were on the ground in Ukraine. In the dramatic description of a clandestine convoy that smuggled two Ukrainian generals across the Polish border to meet with American intelligence and military officials to “forge what would become one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war in Ukraine,” The Times reveals that the convoy was “manned by British commandos, out of uniform but heavily armed.”
That’s not entirely news. Nor is it entirely news that “American military advisers were dispatched to Kyiv.” It may be news that the Biden administration sent “a small team, about a dozen officers, to Kyiv, easing the prohibition on American boots on Ukrainian ground,” and then, “to build confidence and coordination, the administration more than tripled the number of officers in Kyiv, to about three dozen; they could now plainly be called advisers, though they would still be confined to the Kyiv area.” But it is significant that “The C.I.A. was also authorized to send officers to the Kharkiv region to assist their Ukrainian counterparts with operations inside the box.” “Inside the box” means inside Russia. “The unthinkable had become real,” Entous says. “The United States was now woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil.” Soon, military advisers would be dispatched to “command posts closer to the fighting.”
The creeping closer to the front of U.S. military advisers hints at how far the U.S. stretched its restrictions and became involved in strikes inside Russia. It began with Crimea, regarded by Russians as their own. American intelligence and targeting information allowed the killing of Russian generals. “[W]ith leeway to act within Crimea itself,” the CIA supported a massive attack by maritime drones on the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Later the U.S. military and the CIA would help “plan and support a campaign of Ukrainian strikes in Russian-annexed Crimea.”
In an operation code-named “Lunar Hail,” the Biden administration authorized Ukraine to attack Crimea with long-range missiles and drones with the aim of forcing Russia “to pull their military infrastructure out of Crimea.” The U.S. would select the targets and “oversee virtually every aspect of each strike, from determining the coordinates to calculating the missiles’ flight paths.” The Biden administration even “authorized the military and C.I.A. to secretly work with the Ukrainians and the British on a blueprint of attack to bring the [Kerch Strait] bridge down.”
By the end “the military and then the C.I.A. received the green light to enable pinpoint strikes deep inside Russia itself.” Since the CIA was not allowed to provide targeting information inside Russian territory, in an act of sophistry, “the administration would let the C.I.A. request “variances,” carve-outs authorizing the spy agency to support strikes inside Russia to achieve specific objectives.” The CIA provided details on Russian “vulnerabilities,” as well as intelligence on Russian defense systems. “They calculated how many drones the operation would require and charted their circuitous flight paths.”
The Times article reveals, perhaps in clearer detail than before, how these escalations recklessly led the Biden administrations to repeatedly cross red lines, creating consequences that had them genuinely concerned about World War 3 and even nuclear war.
When the U.S. first provided longer-range HIMARS rocket systems, which rely on U.S. satellites for their flight paths, a U.S. official reflected that “the moment felt like ‘standing on that line, wondering, if you take a step forward, is World War III going to break out?’”
In their calculations, the U.S. knew that Russian nuclear doctrine hypothetically allows for the use of nuclear weapons if “the very existence of the state is threatened.” They knew, too, that Russia considers Crimea to be part of the Russian state. U.S intelligence had “overheard Russia’s Ukraine commander, Gen. Sergei Surovikin, talking about… using tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the Ukrainians from crossing the Dnipro and making a beeline to Crimea.” Estimating that it would raise “the chance of Russia’s using nuclear weapons in Ukraine” to “50 percent,” the Biden administration authorized Operation Lunar Hail anyway.
They would repeat that risk with the introduction of the longer-range ATACMS, knowing that “Russia’s military chief, General Gerasimov, had indirectly referred to them the previous May when he warned General Milley that anything” with their longer-range “would be breaching a red line.” The “final red line” would be crossed when the CIA was authorized “to support long-range missile and drone strikes into… Russia.”
In addition to the reckless flirtation with World War 3 and a nuclear war for which history should hold the Biden administration accountable, The Times article reveals another cynical nugget that has not previously been enough reported.
The war against Russia in Ukraine “was also a grand experiment in war fighting, one that would not only help the Ukrainians but reward the Americans with lessons for any future war.” In an episode meant more as poignant drama than investigative journalism, Entous misses the significance of his own reporting. As Lt. Gen. Christopher T. Donahue, the head of the coalition supporting Ukraine, ended his deployment and prepared to leave, he presented Ukrainian general Zabrodskyi a gift and said, “Thanks.” When the Ukrainian general asked him, “Why are you thanking me? I should say thank you,” Donahue “explained that the Ukrainians were the ones fighting and dying, testing American equipment and tactics and sharing lessons learned. ‘Thanks to you,’ he said, ‘we built all these things that we never could have.’”
Missing from the story, is that the Russian armed forces also met and adapted to the most advanced American systems, learning how to defend against and eliminate many of them.
The New York Times article is characterized by other oddities. As Geoffrey Roberts, Professor Emeritus of history at University College Cork, pointed out to me, in Entous’ account, the Russian armed forces play no role. In a peculiar narrative that differs significantly from more authoritative ones, like the one told in the relevant chapters of The Routledge Handbook of Soviet and Russian Military Studies, edited by Alexander Hill, the “incompetent” Russian armed forces are only ever reactive. They are missing from the story. The Russians have no battlefield successes, only passive responses to Ukrainian failures.
In a war that has swung decisively in Russia’s favor, the American-Ukrainian “partnership” is portrayed as “yield[ing] triumph upon triumph.” Even most of Ukraine’s catastrophic failures are presented as yielding some success. In the face of partnership victories, Russian forces’ “morale plummeted, and with it their will to fight.” An odd account of a war Russia is winning.
But perhaps most importantly, the article reads like a history intended to prepare the American public for defeat in Ukraine. Every victory is credited to America; every defeat is blamed on Ukraine. To read the article is to learn that Ukraine would have won the war had they only listened to the Americans.
The Times article is a flipping of the script. Ukraine has blamed the U.S. for its failure, pointing to a failure to keep its promise of whatever they need for as long as they need it. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may have meant his Ukraine Victory Plan to allow him to claim that he has begged the U.S. to keep its promise to no avail. They had broken their promise and abandoned him, leaving no choice but to concede defeat and turn to negotiations. The Times article flips the script: the U.S. did everything they could do, but the Ukrainians wouldn’t listen. That is why the war was lost, and now we have no choice but to force negotiations.
There are too many examples of the U.S. receiving credit for every victory and Ukraine receiving blame for every failure to quote them all. “The Americans,” we are told, “sometimes couldn’t understand why the Ukrainians didn’t simply accept good advice.” An American general told a Ukrainian general, “I love your country. But if you don’t do this, you’re going to lose the war.” The humbled general replied that he gets it, but that he is “not the supreme commander. And I’m not the president of Ukraine.” On another occasion, the same American general told the Ukrainians, “You can ‘Slava Ukraini’ all you want with other people. I don’t care how brave you are. Look at the numbers,” before “walk[ing] them through a plan to win a battlefield advantage.”
When the Ukrainian armed forces had an “important” early “victory,” against Russian soldiers attempting to build a bridge they could cross over a river, “spoken was that the Americans had supplied the points of interest [targets] that helped thwart the Russian assault.” Time and time again, when battles failed, it was because “the Americans were informed that the order of battle had changed” or Ukrainian generals “had other plans” or the “Americans were not told the meeting’s outcome.” “That’s not the plan!” the exasperated American generals would cry. “All we kept thinking,” a senior U.S. official reports, “was, this is not great.”
The Americans meticulously laid out each operation. But each time they failed, it was because “[t]he Ukrainians wavered” or their generals “wouldn’t budge” or, when the U.S. generals “were begging” the Ukrainian general “to move his brigades forward… The Ukrainian commander hesitated.” The crucial counteroffensive failed because the “key” was “beginning the counteroffensive on schedule,” but the “drop-dead date came and went” because “the Ukrainians wouldn’t commit.” A frustrated senior U.S. official said that “We should have walked away.”
Later missions would fail because, out of “caution and a deficit of trust,” Ukrainian commanders would now “first use drones to confirm the [U.S.] intelligence,” costing precious time. In the end, Ukraine fell short because they “weren’t willing to do what was necessary to help themselves prevail” by drafting people as young as 18, despite all the legitimate reasons for not doing so that the Americans were deaf to because they prioritized their goals in the proxy war over Ukraine’s concerns.
The New York Times article reveals many gems, sometimes not the ones it set out to. Its cataloguing of just how much the U.S. was “woven into the war” should also, as Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, suggested to me, remind the Europeans, with their ambitious ideas of continuing to support the war without the Americans, how crucial U.S. aid. But the most important revelation of the article is that it is the first significant public attempt to prepare Americans for defeat in a war that cost them billions of dollars and the Ukrainians hundreds of thousands of casualties and lives.
original.antiwar.com
Ted Snider
April 04, 2025
A March 29 article on America’s involvement in the war in Ukraine in The New York Times by Adam Entous “reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.” “Understood” is a euphemism. It means the American and global public were lied to.
The article reveals that the war in Ukraine truly was, as former British prime minister Boris Johnson and U.S. secretary of state Marco Rubio have already said, a proxy war against Russia. U.S. military and intelligence were involved in every stage of the war, including supplying the weapons, the training, the planning, the war-gaming, the intelligence and the targeting. They were involved in everything from the big picture to the minute detail: “A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.”
American military and intelligence provided “intelligence about Russian battlefield positions, movements and intentions.” “Every morning, officers recalled, the Ukrainians and Americans gathered to survey Russian weapons systems and ground forces and determine the ripest, highest-value targets.” When a “European intelligence chief” discovered how “deeply enmeshed” NATO was in the battlefield operations, he marveled that “They are part of the kill chain now.”
But none of this is really new. For those paying attention to the news, and not the propaganda and repeated assurances and talking points, this information was readily available. Even The New York Times had already reported much of it. The Entous piece adds many names and significant details, but it is not a revelation that the U.S. was not only supplying the Ukrainian armed forces the weapons but that it was feeding them the intelligence.
But beneath the supposed bombshell, important nuggets are exposed that deserve more attention. Though, again, not entirely new, the piece opens with the revelation – intended as dramatic narrative and not investigative journalism–that from early in the war, NATO troops were on the ground in Ukraine. In the dramatic description of a clandestine convoy that smuggled two Ukrainian generals across the Polish border to meet with American intelligence and military officials to “forge what would become one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war in Ukraine,” The Times reveals that the convoy was “manned by British commandos, out of uniform but heavily armed.”
That’s not entirely news. Nor is it entirely news that “American military advisers were dispatched to Kyiv.” It may be news that the Biden administration sent “a small team, about a dozen officers, to Kyiv, easing the prohibition on American boots on Ukrainian ground,” and then, “to build confidence and coordination, the administration more than tripled the number of officers in Kyiv, to about three dozen; they could now plainly be called advisers, though they would still be confined to the Kyiv area.” But it is significant that “The C.I.A. was also authorized to send officers to the Kharkiv region to assist their Ukrainian counterparts with operations inside the box.” “Inside the box” means inside Russia. “The unthinkable had become real,” Entous says. “The United States was now woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil.” Soon, military advisers would be dispatched to “command posts closer to the fighting.”
The creeping closer to the front of U.S. military advisers hints at how far the U.S. stretched its restrictions and became involved in strikes inside Russia. It began with Crimea, regarded by Russians as their own. American intelligence and targeting information allowed the killing of Russian generals. “[W]ith leeway to act within Crimea itself,” the CIA supported a massive attack by maritime drones on the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Later the U.S. military and the CIA would help “plan and support a campaign of Ukrainian strikes in Russian-annexed Crimea.”
In an operation code-named “Lunar Hail,” the Biden administration authorized Ukraine to attack Crimea with long-range missiles and drones with the aim of forcing Russia “to pull their military infrastructure out of Crimea.” The U.S. would select the targets and “oversee virtually every aspect of each strike, from determining the coordinates to calculating the missiles’ flight paths.” The Biden administration even “authorized the military and C.I.A. to secretly work with the Ukrainians and the British on a blueprint of attack to bring the [Kerch Strait] bridge down.”
By the end “the military and then the C.I.A. received the green light to enable pinpoint strikes deep inside Russia itself.” Since the CIA was not allowed to provide targeting information inside Russian territory, in an act of sophistry, “the administration would let the C.I.A. request “variances,” carve-outs authorizing the spy agency to support strikes inside Russia to achieve specific objectives.” The CIA provided details on Russian “vulnerabilities,” as well as intelligence on Russian defense systems. “They calculated how many drones the operation would require and charted their circuitous flight paths.”
The Times article reveals, perhaps in clearer detail than before, how these escalations recklessly led the Biden administrations to repeatedly cross red lines, creating consequences that had them genuinely concerned about World War 3 and even nuclear war.
When the U.S. first provided longer-range HIMARS rocket systems, which rely on U.S. satellites for their flight paths, a U.S. official reflected that “the moment felt like ‘standing on that line, wondering, if you take a step forward, is World War III going to break out?’”
In their calculations, the U.S. knew that Russian nuclear doctrine hypothetically allows for the use of nuclear weapons if “the very existence of the state is threatened.” They knew, too, that Russia considers Crimea to be part of the Russian state. U.S intelligence had “overheard Russia’s Ukraine commander, Gen. Sergei Surovikin, talking about… using tactical nuclear weapons to prevent the Ukrainians from crossing the Dnipro and making a beeline to Crimea.” Estimating that it would raise “the chance of Russia’s using nuclear weapons in Ukraine” to “50 percent,” the Biden administration authorized Operation Lunar Hail anyway.
They would repeat that risk with the introduction of the longer-range ATACMS, knowing that “Russia’s military chief, General Gerasimov, had indirectly referred to them the previous May when he warned General Milley that anything” with their longer-range “would be breaching a red line.” The “final red line” would be crossed when the CIA was authorized “to support long-range missile and drone strikes into… Russia.”
In addition to the reckless flirtation with World War 3 and a nuclear war for which history should hold the Biden administration accountable, The Times article reveals another cynical nugget that has not previously been enough reported.
The war against Russia in Ukraine “was also a grand experiment in war fighting, one that would not only help the Ukrainians but reward the Americans with lessons for any future war.” In an episode meant more as poignant drama than investigative journalism, Entous misses the significance of his own reporting. As Lt. Gen. Christopher T. Donahue, the head of the coalition supporting Ukraine, ended his deployment and prepared to leave, he presented Ukrainian general Zabrodskyi a gift and said, “Thanks.” When the Ukrainian general asked him, “Why are you thanking me? I should say thank you,” Donahue “explained that the Ukrainians were the ones fighting and dying, testing American equipment and tactics and sharing lessons learned. ‘Thanks to you,’ he said, ‘we built all these things that we never could have.’”
Missing from the story, is that the Russian armed forces also met and adapted to the most advanced American systems, learning how to defend against and eliminate many of them.
The New York Times article is characterized by other oddities. As Geoffrey Roberts, Professor Emeritus of history at University College Cork, pointed out to me, in Entous’ account, the Russian armed forces play no role. In a peculiar narrative that differs significantly from more authoritative ones, like the one told in the relevant chapters of The Routledge Handbook of Soviet and Russian Military Studies, edited by Alexander Hill, the “incompetent” Russian armed forces are only ever reactive. They are missing from the story. The Russians have no battlefield successes, only passive responses to Ukrainian failures.
In a war that has swung decisively in Russia’s favor, the American-Ukrainian “partnership” is portrayed as “yield[ing] triumph upon triumph.” Even most of Ukraine’s catastrophic failures are presented as yielding some success. In the face of partnership victories, Russian forces’ “morale plummeted, and with it their will to fight.” An odd account of a war Russia is winning.
But perhaps most importantly, the article reads like a history intended to prepare the American public for defeat in Ukraine. Every victory is credited to America; every defeat is blamed on Ukraine. To read the article is to learn that Ukraine would have won the war had they only listened to the Americans.
The Times article is a flipping of the script. Ukraine has blamed the U.S. for its failure, pointing to a failure to keep its promise of whatever they need for as long as they need it. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may have meant his Ukraine Victory Plan to allow him to claim that he has begged the U.S. to keep its promise to no avail. They had broken their promise and abandoned him, leaving no choice but to concede defeat and turn to negotiations. The Times article flips the script: the U.S. did everything they could do, but the Ukrainians wouldn’t listen. That is why the war was lost, and now we have no choice but to force negotiations.
There are too many examples of the U.S. receiving credit for every victory and Ukraine receiving blame for every failure to quote them all. “The Americans,” we are told, “sometimes couldn’t understand why the Ukrainians didn’t simply accept good advice.” An American general told a Ukrainian general, “I love your country. But if you don’t do this, you’re going to lose the war.” The humbled general replied that he gets it, but that he is “not the supreme commander. And I’m not the president of Ukraine.” On another occasion, the same American general told the Ukrainians, “You can ‘Slava Ukraini’ all you want with other people. I don’t care how brave you are. Look at the numbers,” before “walk[ing] them through a plan to win a battlefield advantage.”
When the Ukrainian armed forces had an “important” early “victory,” against Russian soldiers attempting to build a bridge they could cross over a river, “spoken was that the Americans had supplied the points of interest [targets] that helped thwart the Russian assault.” Time and time again, when battles failed, it was because “the Americans were informed that the order of battle had changed” or Ukrainian generals “had other plans” or the “Americans were not told the meeting’s outcome.” “That’s not the plan!” the exasperated American generals would cry. “All we kept thinking,” a senior U.S. official reports, “was, this is not great.”
The Americans meticulously laid out each operation. But each time they failed, it was because “[t]he Ukrainians wavered” or their generals “wouldn’t budge” or, when the U.S. generals “were begging” the Ukrainian general “to move his brigades forward… The Ukrainian commander hesitated.” The crucial counteroffensive failed because the “key” was “beginning the counteroffensive on schedule,” but the “drop-dead date came and went” because “the Ukrainians wouldn’t commit.” A frustrated senior U.S. official said that “We should have walked away.”
Later missions would fail because, out of “caution and a deficit of trust,” Ukrainian commanders would now “first use drones to confirm the [U.S.] intelligence,” costing precious time. In the end, Ukraine fell short because they “weren’t willing to do what was necessary to help themselves prevail” by drafting people as young as 18, despite all the legitimate reasons for not doing so that the Americans were deaf to because they prioritized their goals in the proxy war over Ukraine’s concerns.
The New York Times article reveals many gems, sometimes not the ones it set out to. Its cataloguing of just how much the U.S. was “woven into the war” should also, as Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, suggested to me, remind the Europeans, with their ambitious ideas of continuing to support the war without the Americans, how crucial U.S. aid. But the most important revelation of the article is that it is the first significant public attempt to prepare Americans for defeat in a war that cost them billions of dollars and the Ukrainians hundreds of thousands of casualties and lives.
New York Times Blockbuster Article Prepares Americans for Defeat in Ukraine - Antiwar.com
A March 29 article on America’s involvement in the war in Ukraine in The New York Times by Adam Entous “reveals that America was woven into the war far more intimately and broadly than previously understood.” “Understood” is a euphemism. It means the American and global public were lied to.…
Last edited:
Russia and the US made “three steps forward” after two days of consultations in Washington
APRIL 6, 2025 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
The visit by the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and special representative of the Russian president for investment and economic cooperation Kirill Dmitriev to Washington on April 2-3, the first such visit by a senior Kremlin official since 2022, appears to have been a modest achievement whose productive outcome will be crucial in the rest of US-Russia relations.
If President Vladimir Putin’s choice fell on Dmitriev for such a hugely important pathbreaking mission, that has been for sound reasons. An enduring settlement in Ukraine hinges on the stabilisation of the Russian-American ties which is deeply flawed due to the meagre content of it in substance.
Putin and US President Donald Trump share a conviction that the latter’s MAGA project offers a rare window of opportunity to couple Russia’s vast resources with the regeneration of the American economy in a new order where geopolitics will no longer be the pivot.
In a historical perspective, this involves a formidable challenge insofar as it is nothing short of the rollback of a century of adversarial mindset, on both sides, that began in the period 1918-1920 when the US, Britain, France, and Japan sent thousands of troops from the Baltics to northern Russia to Siberia to Crimea—and despatched massive millions of financial aid and military supplies to the anti-communist White Russians—in an abortive attempt to strangle Bolshevism in its crib.
The Biden administration had already sanctioned Dmitriev after spotting him as “a known Putin ally.” But Trump sees that fatal flaw in Dmitriev’s DNA as actually qualifying him to be an excellent counterpart to his own special envoy Steve Witkoff, the billionaire businessman and close friend of the US president. Dmitriev is a former banker who studied at Stanford and Harvard and worked at McKinsey and Goldman and is familiar with the ways of Wall Street where he has old friends and associates. White House appreciated Dmitriev’s role in the release of the American prisoner Marc Fogel in February in a deal negotiated by Witkoff.
Unsurprisingly, “key members of the US administration” received Dmitriev, including Witkoff. Dmitriev’s posts in the social media have been in an upbeat tone, signalling that at the very least, the nascent US-Russian dialogue is on track. The Russian reports mentioned that Dmitriev’s agenda included the possibility of resumption of direct flights between the two countries, the stalled ceasefire in Ukraine, and, importantly, cooperation in the Arctic as well as in rare earths.
Meanwhile, in a significant gesture, even as Dmitriev hit the ground in DC, Trump left out Russia from the list of countries against which new tariffs were announced on “Liberation Day” (April 2).
Equally, it transpires that American companies have applied for participation in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) due to be held in St. Petersburg on May 19-20. Traditionally, Putin personally interacts with the foreign participants in the SPIEF event.
Dmitriev took stock of all this probably when he told reporters in DC that his meetings with administration officials constituted a step forward. “I would say that today and yesterday we made three steps forward on a large number of issues,” Dmitriev pointed out. He acknowledged that issues have been piling up for three years, as there was virtually no communication between Russia and the US. “Therefore, the process of dialogue, the process of resolution will take some time, but it is definitely positive and constructive,” he said.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov hinted on Friday that the forthcoming second round of discussions between the Russian and US delegations will focus on simplifying the visa process, improving the mechanisms of mutual travel and resolving issues of financial transfers for diplomatic missions.
To be sure, the elephant in the room is the West’s “sanctions from hell” against Russia. Even an affectionate tweak of sanctions for Russia’s exports of agricultural products and fertiliser meets with resistance from the European Union.
The Russian-American dialogue continues to face attempts at sabotage by Ukraine and the EU as well as certain groups within the US who simply do not want any normalisation with Russia, including influential lawmakers such as Senator Lindsey Graham who is otherwise a staunch political supporter of Trump.
While in DC, Dmitriev remarked that “numerous forces interested in maintaining tension” stand in the way of restoring dialogue. He said they deliberately distort Russia’s position and try to disrupt any steps towards US-Russia cooperation, “sparing neither money nor resources for this.” (See a vicious attack on Dmitriev’s visit by the CNN here.)
The Ukrainian leadership sees the US-Russia negotiations as posing an existential threat. Their belligerence and attempts to sabotage the negotiation process are directly linked to their main agenda of willy-nilly retaining the levers of power in Kiev.
Against such heavy odds, it is appreciable that Washington and Moscow are still on the ball in regard of the full restoration of the functioning of diplomatic missions — although the negotiations on the Black Sea Initiative at the recent Riyadh meeting are on hold.
On the other hand, at the last summit of European leaders a week ago, rare calls were heard for the EU to reach out to Russia for dialogue. The Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that France or Britain should enter into negotiations with Putin. Slovakia and Hungary have traditionally advocated such a pathway.
This kite-flying is an important enough signal that the matrix may no longer be seen in binary terms — as confrontation between the West and Russia — but creeping toward a modus operandi of “every man for himself.” If Europe sees that sanctions continue to harm the EU itself, it is possible that they will reconsider old positions. The point is, the ice may break any moment.
In the final analysis, the US remains a significant economic player in the transatlantic grid and the western system including the EU, functions as Washington’s creation, and the Trump administration is capable of exerting pressure on Brussels.
Therefore, the question narrows down to how far Trump’s team shares the president’s vision of friendship and camaraderie with Putin at a personal level and a constructive engagement by the erstwhile rivals in a spirit of cooperation. To a keen observer, Secretary of State Marco Rubio who harbours presidential ambitions, already seems the odd man out.
Indeed, despite the change of administration, some US government officials, even from the Republican Party, are still opposed to dialogue. Maybe their tone has softened a bit but there’s no sign yet of ‘new thinking’. All these are disturbing signs that a full-fledged Russian-American détente remains a long haul.
Above all, as if the Russia policy shift is not complicated enough, Trump has also got to grapple with the Iran question where a deadline is expected by October and a spectre of confrontation haunts both Washington and Iran unless a deal appears in the next 3-4 months.
But then, “Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in his head.” Adversity, as Shakespeare suggested, often conceals valuable lessons and opportunities for growth. Even in challenging times, there is wisdom to be gained and strength to be found.
The ‘known known’ is that Putin commands immense respect in Tehran. And the ‘known unknown’ is, how far Russia can help in a mediatory mission to wrap up a US-Iran deal. Put differently, the ‘unknown unknown’ is, will Trump seek Putin’s helping hand?
Anything is possible in Trump’s revolutionary mind. After all, the administration has stopped demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria. This tendentious item is missing from Washington’s new list of conditions for the authorities in Damascus.
APRIL 6, 2025 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
The visit by the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and special representative of the Russian president for investment and economic cooperation Kirill Dmitriev to Washington on April 2-3, the first such visit by a senior Kremlin official since 2022, appears to have been a modest achievement whose productive outcome will be crucial in the rest of US-Russia relations.
If President Vladimir Putin’s choice fell on Dmitriev for such a hugely important pathbreaking mission, that has been for sound reasons. An enduring settlement in Ukraine hinges on the stabilisation of the Russian-American ties which is deeply flawed due to the meagre content of it in substance.
Putin and US President Donald Trump share a conviction that the latter’s MAGA project offers a rare window of opportunity to couple Russia’s vast resources with the regeneration of the American economy in a new order where geopolitics will no longer be the pivot.
In a historical perspective, this involves a formidable challenge insofar as it is nothing short of the rollback of a century of adversarial mindset, on both sides, that began in the period 1918-1920 when the US, Britain, France, and Japan sent thousands of troops from the Baltics to northern Russia to Siberia to Crimea—and despatched massive millions of financial aid and military supplies to the anti-communist White Russians—in an abortive attempt to strangle Bolshevism in its crib.
The Biden administration had already sanctioned Dmitriev after spotting him as “a known Putin ally.” But Trump sees that fatal flaw in Dmitriev’s DNA as actually qualifying him to be an excellent counterpart to his own special envoy Steve Witkoff, the billionaire businessman and close friend of the US president. Dmitriev is a former banker who studied at Stanford and Harvard and worked at McKinsey and Goldman and is familiar with the ways of Wall Street where he has old friends and associates. White House appreciated Dmitriev’s role in the release of the American prisoner Marc Fogel in February in a deal negotiated by Witkoff.
Unsurprisingly, “key members of the US administration” received Dmitriev, including Witkoff. Dmitriev’s posts in the social media have been in an upbeat tone, signalling that at the very least, the nascent US-Russian dialogue is on track. The Russian reports mentioned that Dmitriev’s agenda included the possibility of resumption of direct flights between the two countries, the stalled ceasefire in Ukraine, and, importantly, cooperation in the Arctic as well as in rare earths.
Meanwhile, in a significant gesture, even as Dmitriev hit the ground in DC, Trump left out Russia from the list of countries against which new tariffs were announced on “Liberation Day” (April 2).
Equally, it transpires that American companies have applied for participation in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) due to be held in St. Petersburg on May 19-20. Traditionally, Putin personally interacts with the foreign participants in the SPIEF event.
Dmitriev took stock of all this probably when he told reporters in DC that his meetings with administration officials constituted a step forward. “I would say that today and yesterday we made three steps forward on a large number of issues,” Dmitriev pointed out. He acknowledged that issues have been piling up for three years, as there was virtually no communication between Russia and the US. “Therefore, the process of dialogue, the process of resolution will take some time, but it is definitely positive and constructive,” he said.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov hinted on Friday that the forthcoming second round of discussions between the Russian and US delegations will focus on simplifying the visa process, improving the mechanisms of mutual travel and resolving issues of financial transfers for diplomatic missions.
To be sure, the elephant in the room is the West’s “sanctions from hell” against Russia. Even an affectionate tweak of sanctions for Russia’s exports of agricultural products and fertiliser meets with resistance from the European Union.
The Russian-American dialogue continues to face attempts at sabotage by Ukraine and the EU as well as certain groups within the US who simply do not want any normalisation with Russia, including influential lawmakers such as Senator Lindsey Graham who is otherwise a staunch political supporter of Trump.
While in DC, Dmitriev remarked that “numerous forces interested in maintaining tension” stand in the way of restoring dialogue. He said they deliberately distort Russia’s position and try to disrupt any steps towards US-Russia cooperation, “sparing neither money nor resources for this.” (See a vicious attack on Dmitriev’s visit by the CNN here.)
The Ukrainian leadership sees the US-Russia negotiations as posing an existential threat. Their belligerence and attempts to sabotage the negotiation process are directly linked to their main agenda of willy-nilly retaining the levers of power in Kiev.
Against such heavy odds, it is appreciable that Washington and Moscow are still on the ball in regard of the full restoration of the functioning of diplomatic missions — although the negotiations on the Black Sea Initiative at the recent Riyadh meeting are on hold.
On the other hand, at the last summit of European leaders a week ago, rare calls were heard for the EU to reach out to Russia for dialogue. The Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that France or Britain should enter into negotiations with Putin. Slovakia and Hungary have traditionally advocated such a pathway.
This kite-flying is an important enough signal that the matrix may no longer be seen in binary terms — as confrontation between the West and Russia — but creeping toward a modus operandi of “every man for himself.” If Europe sees that sanctions continue to harm the EU itself, it is possible that they will reconsider old positions. The point is, the ice may break any moment.
In the final analysis, the US remains a significant economic player in the transatlantic grid and the western system including the EU, functions as Washington’s creation, and the Trump administration is capable of exerting pressure on Brussels.
Therefore, the question narrows down to how far Trump’s team shares the president’s vision of friendship and camaraderie with Putin at a personal level and a constructive engagement by the erstwhile rivals in a spirit of cooperation. To a keen observer, Secretary of State Marco Rubio who harbours presidential ambitions, already seems the odd man out.
Indeed, despite the change of administration, some US government officials, even from the Republican Party, are still opposed to dialogue. Maybe their tone has softened a bit but there’s no sign yet of ‘new thinking’. All these are disturbing signs that a full-fledged Russian-American détente remains a long haul.
Above all, as if the Russia policy shift is not complicated enough, Trump has also got to grapple with the Iran question where a deadline is expected by October and a spectre of confrontation haunts both Washington and Iran unless a deal appears in the next 3-4 months.
But then, “Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in his head.” Adversity, as Shakespeare suggested, often conceals valuable lessons and opportunities for growth. Even in challenging times, there is wisdom to be gained and strength to be found.
The ‘known known’ is that Putin commands immense respect in Tehran. And the ‘known unknown’ is, how far Russia can help in a mediatory mission to wrap up a US-Iran deal. Put differently, the ‘unknown unknown’ is, will Trump seek Putin’s helping hand?
Anything is possible in Trump’s revolutionary mind. After all, the administration has stopped demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria. This tendentious item is missing from Washington’s new list of conditions for the authorities in Damascus.
Russia and the US made "three steps forward" after two days of consultations in Washington - Indian Punchline
Russian president’s Special Representative on investment and economic cooperation Kirill Dmitriev had two days of consultations with US administration officials, Washington, DC, April 3, 2025 The visit by the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and special representative of the Russian...
www.indianpunchline.com
