The New York Times Reveals Shocking Truths About US Involvement in Ukraine

A recent New York Times article has provided some shocking revelations about US involvement in the Ukraine conflict. The piece, while seemingly bland on the surface, contains several bombshell admissions that shed new light on the Biden administration's decision-making and the overall trajectory of the war.

Key revelations from the article include:

Earlier Authorization of Strikes on Russian Territory

Contrary to previous assumptions, the Biden administration authorized the use of long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia much earlier than publicly known. The article states:

"In the spring, President Biden relented."

This suggests the decision was made in spring 2023, not November as widely believed. This raises questions about why there was such a long delay in implementing the decision, with strong Pentagon opposition likely playing a role.

Massive Depletion of US Missile Stockpiles

The article reveals an astonishing number of US missiles were sent to Ukraine:

"The administration shipped as many as 500 missiles from Pentagon stockpiles."

This represents a significant portion of the US military's ATACMS missile inventory, potentially up to 25% of the total stockpile. The fact that such a large number of these valuable weapons were expended with little apparent strategic gain is concerning.

Admission of Weapon Ineffectiveness

While claiming the strikes were "effective," the article provides no evidence to support this assertion. In fact, it suggests the opposite:

"US and NATO officials said those strikes had been effective, but also said that they felt Ukraine could have been more judicious in the number of missiles used and more selective with targeting."

This appears to be an attempt to shift blame onto Ukrainian forces, despite the fact that US personnel are likely involved in target selection and missile preparation.

Broader Admissions of Failure

The article makes several statements that amount to admissions of failure in the overall Ukraine strategy:

"By the time the West granted access to these weapons, Ukraine had lost more ground and no weapon has been a silver bullet, Western officials say."

"Western officials say Ukraine has relied too much on help from the West and hasn't done enough to bolster its own war effort, especially in mobilizing enough soldiers."

These statements seem to be laying the groundwork for explaining away the impending collapse of Ukrainian resistance, while attempting to shift blame away from US and Western decision-makers.

The Reality on the Ground

While the New York Times article attempts to paint a nuanced picture, the reality on the ground in Ukraine is becoming increasingly dire for Ukrainian forces. Recent developments include:

Advances Near Kurachove

Russian forces appear to be in the process of storming the thermal power plant west of Kurachove. Reports suggest they have cut off supply routes and established air control over the area, leaving Ukrainian defenders in a precarious position.

Pressure on Velyka Novosilka

Russian forces have begun strikes on Velyka Novosilka and cut off main roads into the town. An assault on this position seems imminent, with limited options for Ukrainian defenders to retreat safely.

Bridgehead North of Kupyansk

Russian forces have established a significant bridgehead north of Kupyansk on the Oskil River. If they can transport armored vehicles across this bridgehead, it could lead to a collapse of Ukrainian defenses in the area.

Advances Southwest of Bakhmut

Perhaps most alarmingly, Russian forces are making rapid advances southwest of Bakhmut. The speed of this advance suggests limited Ukrainian opposition, possibly due to overextension of Ukrainian forces along the front.

Implications for Future Negotiations

As the military situation deteriorates for Ukraine, it's becoming clear that any future negotiations will need to take into account the reality that Russia has effectively won the conventional phase of this conflict. The New York Times article, despite its attempts to soften the blow, essentially confirms this assessment.

Future negotiators, particularly those in a potential new US administration after the January 2025 inauguration, would do well to read this article with a critical eye. It provides valuable insights into the miscalculations and misjudgments that have led to the current situation.

Ultimately, this New York Times piece serves as both an admission of failure and an attempt to construct alibis for the decisions that led to the current debacle in Ukraine. As the situation continues to evolve, it will be crucial for policymakers and the public to understand the true nature of what has transpired over the past two years of conflict.

Article created from: https://youtu.be/NqCZH7PW0j4?feature=shared