Under the Radar: Major CIA Revelations Expose Secret Agreements and Boundaries in Ukraine
This past July, one of the most remarkable articles of the entire Ukrainian war flew under the radar.
Its age does not detract from its significance as the information therein is more pertinent than ever—which is precisely why I chose to do an exposé on it now.
The reason is, as the Ukrainian war presently enters a new watershed phase characterized by the slow-acceptance of Ukraine’s now de facto losing position, a proverbial windmill of narratives is churned out from the pro-UA side seeking to somehow reconcile the various cognitive dissonances created by their inability to understand how it is possible that the mighty NATO bloc could be losing to Russia.
This results in their proposing increasingly convoluted theories as to why the US may be “deliberately sabotaging” Ukraine’s otherwise guaranteed “victory”. For instance, a common coping narrative you might hear these days is that the US “fears” Ukraine winning a total and ‘decisive’ victory over Russia because this would cause Russia to “fracture” into many small feudal states, which could precipitate an existential crisis as the warlords of the new states would vie for the now unaccounted for nuclear weapons, etc. Though it is obviously preposterous, this is the type of narrative being floated on pro-UA thinkspaces to try and explain away the US’s perceived weakness and ‘cowardice’ in the face of Russia’s growing dominance.
They simply cannot understand how it is possible that the US would not stand up to the putatively “weak” Russia. In their mind, addled by two years of propaganda characterizing Russia as a totally dysfunctional failed state with an unimaginably weak military, it’s simply impossible to reconcile these two quotients. So the only logical inference is that it is an intentional act by the US—the only remaining question being why the US would intentionally condition Ukraine’s loss.
But the article dispels such fantasies and reveals some of the real reasons behind US’s seemingly perplexing posture.
Firstly, the article revolves around—as per usual—the statements of an anonymous “senior intelligence official” from the Biden administration, who is “directly involved in Ukraine policy planning,” and notes that the topics discussed therein are ‘highly classified matters’.
The first significant offering is the following:
That the Ukraine war is a clandestine war, with its own set of clandestine rules, and that one of the CIA’s chief roles is to prevent the war from spiraling too much out of control. This will come into heavier play later.
The senior official goes on to clarify the latter position:
"Don't underestimate the Biden administration's priority to keep Americans out of harm's way and reassure Russia that it doesn't need to escalate," the senior intelligence officer says. "Is the CIA on the ground inside Ukraine?" he asks rhetorically. "Yes, but it's also not nefarious."
What he reveals there is likewise significant: the Biden administration has an absolute priority in reassuring Russia to keep Russia from escalating too much. Why would that be? The answer is the broader theme of my entire article.
In fact, Newsweek states that the article is the culmination of three long months of intense trail-following and digging into the CIA’s covert operations in Ukraine.
Again, they highlight the chief operative pillars:
The second official says that while some in the Agency want to speak more openly about its renewed significance, that is not likely to happen. "The corporate CIA worries that too much bravado about its role could provoke Putin," the intelligence official says.
You can see the common theme of the constant prudential tip-toeing around Russia’s redlines so as not to excessively provoke Putin.
They go on to express that the CIA is keen to distance itself from any of Ukraine’s more provocative actions, like the Nordstream attack, or strikes on Russian territory.
But the key portion of the article, which comes next, is the admission that Biden dispatched CIA director Burns to Russia on the eve of the invasion in late 2021. They had been watching Russia’s troop buildups, and in essence sent Burns to deliver a final warning of consequences should Russia proceed with an invasion. Though Putin ended up “snubbing” the CIA head by staying in a Sochi resort and refusing to meet him in person, he did take his secure phone call from Sochi.
What comes next is the heart of the entire article and is one of the most significant and remarkable admissions of the entire war. It is a must read:
Read that several times to comprehend the gravity of it, as this one statement alone single handedly explains and encapsulates the entire dynamic of the war.
Once again I’m forced to be the bearer of the news that not all is as it seems on the surface. Russia isn’t the 10 foot giant some have built it up to be, nor is it a dwarf. Likewise, the US isn’t some uncompromisingly all-powerful entity that does what it wants at all times with zero qualms or concern for repercussions.
This may be a difficult point for some to swallow; after all, how is it possible in actual practice that the US could be fearful of Russia’s reprisal? After all, the US has its vaunted fleets that sail unchallenged through every sea; just the US’s naval air wing alone, believe it or not, makes up the second largest airforce in the entire world. That’s right, just the Navy, which itself pales in comparison to the Airforce, has more planes than the entire Russian airforce. What could such an imposing powerhouse possibly fear from little ol’ Russia?
It stems from the misunderstanding of the actual logistical nuances of the US’s force projection capabilities in the European theater. The people confused by these revelations are those who easily fell prey to a very generalized and caricaturized image of the US military’s operations therein. They’ve developed a blanket image of US forces being able to operate all over Europe, instantly bringing to bear endless stealth craft, unlimited unstoppable missiles, hundreds of thousands of troops, etc.
But that’s far from reality. The US is direly overstretched; its most critical bases in Europe—the ones actually capable of fielding the types of platforms that could actually do anything against Russia, are highly vulnerable. The US has further learned from the Ukrainian conflict that its most advanced air defense is virtually helpless against Russia’s top missiles. Reuters recently told us that Ukraine alone has 1/3 of all the air defense of the entire European continent, and yet Russia has no trouble penetrating it.
This is not to swing the pendulum too far to the other side and lay unrealistic claim to Russia being able to easily and instantly wipe out all of NATO—no, it’s simply to temper ideas about what US and NATO could realistically do to Russia. At the end of the day, a war between the two could very well be a stalemate but it would come at massive costs to the US/NATO, which is precisely the point that pro-UA supporters have made themselves blind to.
THANK YOU! to Everyone Who Contributed to our 1st Ever Fundraiser for the Art of Liberty Foundation! As of January 2nd we have raised $34,568 or 69% of our $50,000 goal! Donations are still coming in via postal mail and the internet so we will announce the final total next week BUT I wanted to thank everyone who contributed and/or went “Paid” on Substack. We simply couldn’t do this work without the folks who support us financially! It is so very much appreciated!! Happy New Year to All!! - Etienne
