The recently published New York Times exposé, “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine,” has made waves across media circles, but its underlying implications are far more revealing than the article itself. Touted as an “untold story” about America’s involvement in the war in Ukraine, the piece ironically tells a story that is already well known to those who have been paying attention: The United States and its allies have not simply been supporting Ukraine but have actively been engaged in what can no longer be described as a mere proxy war. Instead, it has been a direct, albeit undeclared, confrontation with Russia.

Yet despite this level of involvement, the West has thus far failed to push the conflict into the realm of a full-scale World War III. The reason? Not Western restraint, as some narratives would suggest, but rather Moscow’s calculated patience and strategic decision-making.

From the outset of the conflict, Western leaders framed their involvement as supporting Ukraine’s right to self-defense. However, ‘The Partnership’ confirms what many have long suspected: Western nations have been far more than passive supporters. According to the NYT piece, Western intelligence officers have played a crucial role in Ukraine’s decision-making, from planning military operations to guiding missile strikes that have inflicted heavy casualties on Russian forces. NATO members have provided not just arms and training, but real-time battlefield intelligence and logistical coordination-an act that blurs the lines between indirect support and direct engagement in warfare.

Moreover, Western military leaders, from American generals to British advisors, have openly treated Ukraine as a testing ground for NATO’s strategic ambitions. The goal has not been simply to aid Ukraine but to use Ukrainian forces to weaken Russia geopolitically. In essence, the West has been treating the war as an opportunity to deliver a “strategic defeat” to Russia, with little regard........

© Blitz