This post is a compilation of information regarding the increasingly dangerous situation which the US, UK and NATO have created through their proxy war against Russia using Ukraine as their battering ram.
In his article published Monday, Aaron Maté outlines succinctly how Biden and his war hawks are preparing to use their Ukrainian proxies to instigate the seemingly much desired full-on war with Russia before he leaves the White House.
Throughout the Ukraine proxy war, President Biden has privately voiced complaints about his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, that he has never shared publicly.
According to a recent book by the New York Times’ David Sanger, Biden has lamented that Zelensky, with his incessant requests for advanced US weaponry, is trying to “pull us into World War III.” Long atop Zelensky’s wish list is US permission to fire long-range missiles known as ATACMS deep into Russian territory -- which, Sanger reports, was “exactly Biden’s worst fear.”
With just two months left in his presidency and an incoming successor, Donald Trump, vowing to end a war that Biden regards as his signature foreign policy achievement, the outgoing Commander-in-Chief has found a way to overcome his worst fear. On Sunday, White House aides disclosed that Biden has granted Ukraine permission to use the ATACMS for long-range attacks inside Russia.
Ukraine’s initial targets, the New York Times reports, will “likely” be Russian and what are rumored to be North Korean troops operating in the Russian region of Kursk, where Ukraine’s military has waged a surprise incursion since August. While Moscow has confirmed that North Koreans are training on its soil, it has not confirmed their deployment in Kursk. The US has not ruled out even deeper strikes, the Times notes, as “Biden could authorize [Ukraine] to use the weapons elsewhere.”
While the Times notes that Biden’s directive “is a major change in U.S. policy,” it does not mention a critical element: the direct involvement of US personnel. When Ukrainian forces use the advanced US-provided rocket systems that would now launch the ATACMS, they “require coordinates provided or confirmed by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes,” the Washington Post reported in February 2023. Accordingly, the Post added, Ukraine “usually chooses not to strike without U.S. confirmation.” Back when it was lobbying for US permission to use the ATACMS, a senior Ukrainian official noted that Washington would be in charge: “You’re controlling every shot anyway, so when you say, ‘We’re afraid that you’re going to use it for some other purposes,’ well, we can’t do it even if we want to.”
According to the Times, Biden’s decision has “divided his advisers”, with some fearing that it could prompt Russia to “retaliate with force” against the NATO alliance. U.S. officials also “do not believe that the decision will change the course of the war.” But Biden has “determined that the potential benefits... outweighed the escalation risks.”
Those risks were previewed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in September, who warned that long-range strikes “will mean that NATO countries... are at war with Russia” and vowed to “make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.” Moscow could respond, Putin has said previously, by supplying NATO adversaries with long-range weapons of their own.
Having just launched a massive rocket barrage at Ukraine and aware that Kyiv is running out of both time and troops, Russia’s most likely response, in my view, is not direct conflict with NATO but even more punishing strikes on Ukrainian areas.
As for the “potential benefits” that Biden foresees, they have nothing to do with evidence-free claims of North Korean troops fighting in Kursk, or even strengthening Ukraine’s hand at the bargaining table. Given that US officials admit that the newly approved long-range strikes will not “change the course of the war,” Biden is merely continuing the policy that has guided him from the start: using Ukraine to “weaken” Russia.
Having opted to prolong the war at every juncture, Biden has no qualms about sacrificing more Ukrainian lives on his way into retirement. His resolve was previewed last week by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who vowed that, when it comes to military support, “every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th,” when Trump is inaugurated. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, meanwhile pledged to “surge military equipment, to allocate all of the resources that Congress has given us.” According to a new Pentagon report, the current tab for the Ukraine war tops $182 billion.
While Biden’s decision could be seen as an attempt to box in Trump and undermine his pledge to end the war, it is equally possible that the outgoing president is implementing his successor’s eventual strategy. In an interview with NPR ahead of the election, Trump’s designated national security adviser, Mike Waltz, vowed to “get Putin to the table,” by using US “leverage,” such as “taking the handcuffs off of the long-range weapons we provided Ukraine.”
As is now well documented, it is not Russia that needs to be coaxed to the negotiating table. Prior to invading, Russia urged Ukraine to stop ignoring the Minsk Accords and submitted a peace proposal centered on Ukrainian neutrality. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg later acknowledged: “Putin’s precondition for not invading Ukraine was: No Ukraine in NATO. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent more NATO close to his borders.” After invading, Ukraine and Russia quickly brokered a peace deal that was effectively vetoed by US and UK opposition. And just last week, the Kremlin reiterated that it remains open to diplomacy, so long as it “take(s) into account the security interests of the Russian Federation, proceed from the new territorial realities and…address the root causes of the conflict.”
Since taking office, Biden has had no interest in addressing any of Russia’s concerns, or in safeguarding Ukraine’s long-term survival. And now with two months left in his term, Biden’s intransigence has led him escalate the US military role in the Ukraine, and its attendant dangers, to an unprecedented level.
As we know, the bought and paid for puppet Zelensky couldn’t wait to use the lethal ATACM missile toys on behalf of the US, UK and NATO firing them into Russian territory yesterday.
This video published by Murdoch’s The Sun yesterday provides visuals of ATACMs being fired somewhere i.e. not necessarily the ones fired by Ukraine, along with commentary. It also includes a clip of Zelensky giving a short speech to the UN via video link yesterday about working with “all partners” to win their support for longer-range strikes into Russia and more sanctions which is of course one of the West’s favourite ploys. Following his statement, members of the UN applaud the puppet like programmed seals.
The fact that Russian defences shot down five of the six ATACMs launched by Ukraine is not mentioned.
I will leave off with Larry Johnson’s analysis and an interview with him from yesterday in which they discuss the dangerous situation the US, UK, NATO have purposefully created with their proxy war in Ukraine.
Ukraine wasted no time wasting an estimated $7.2 million today by firing six ATACM missiles into Russia’s Bryansk Oblast. Russia claims it downed all of them with no significant damage to Russian assets. Let’s just call this a case of premature launch on the part of Ukraine’s Zelensky. From the Russian perspective, this was an act of war, albeit an ineffective one.
The attack takes on a different meaning in light of Putin’s announcement today of Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine. Here are the key points:
A critical threat to the sovereignty of the Russian Federation even with non-nuclear weapons will be the basis for a nuclear response
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Belarus.
The Russian Federation may consider the issue of using nuclear weapons after reliable data on a massive launch of missiles and/or drones.
Russia has expanded the category of states and military alliances against which nuclear deterrence is carried out.
In the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation.
Russia is obliged to take into account the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for itself and its allies.
I do not believe that Ukraine’s attack today constitutes a critical threat. However, it does represent the United States crossing a line as far as Russia is concerned and may lead to the targeting of US assets in Ukraine. Russia is certainly going to intensify its missile and bombing campaign inside Ukraine and will inflict more devastation.
If Ukraine continues to launch ATACMs into Russia and Russia continues to shoot them down, this will be a major black eye for the US defense industry — i.e., US weapons ineffective against Russian air defense. We will know within the next 24 hours what Russia’s response to the Bryansk attack will be.
The lies and bias that have infected the Western view of the conflict have prevented the people of the United States and Europe from appreciating the colossal defeat that Russia is inflicting on Ukraine and the NATO alliance. The perception of casualties is just one example. Ukraine continues to insist that it has only lost fewer than 50,000 soldiers, but that Russia has suffered catastrophic losses. The truth is the opposite. Consider the following video, as well as before-and-after photos, of four Ukrainian cemeteries. The before is 2022. The after is 2024. Some of the graveyards have grown by a factor of four over the last 2 1/2 years. This is a horrific visual display of Ukraine’s enormous losses. Russia not only is attriting Ukrainian forces at the rate of over 2,000 per day (killed and wounded), it is capturing major swaths of territory all along the line of contact.
2022
2024
2022
2024
2022
2024
2024
Here is the video [which I haven’t been able to download from Larry’s website Below is a screenshot] :
Russian losses are minuscule by comparison (data compiled by Mediazona). The following shows the KIA by oblast:
Given these facts, Russia has less incentive to negotiate a bilateral end to the war. They are in a position to demand an unconditional surrender. I think Donald Trump is in for a surprise if he thinks he can do a deal in 24 hours.
I was interviewed today by Marcelo and we discussed some of these issues.
[Please note that the interview doesn’t start until 18:14 minutes. Hopefully the link to YouTube I have inserted below will start at that time mark.]
Larry C. Johnson is a former CIA officer and intelligence analyst, and former planner and advisor at the US State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. As an independent contractor, he has provided training for the US Military’s Special Operations community for 24 years.
