Did The New York Times publish its “The Spy War: How the CIA Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin†piece to reveal government secrets in the public’s interest? Or was it to convince Americans that “Now these intelligence networks are more important than ever?”
The New York Times on February 25 published an explosive story of what purports to be the history of the CIA in Ukraine from the Maidan coup of 2014 to the present. The story, “The Spy War: How the CIA Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin,†is one of initial bilateral distrust, but a mutual fear and hatred of Russia, that progresses to a relationship so intimate that Ukraine is now one of the CIA’s closest intelligence partners in the world.
At the same time, the Times’ publication of the piece, which reporters claimed relied on more than 200 interviews in Ukraine, the US, and “several European countries,†raises multiple questions: Why did the CIA not object to the article’s publication, especially with it being in one of the Agency’s preferred outlets? When the CIA approaches a newspaper to complain about the classified information it contains, the piece is almost always killed or severely edited. Newspaper publishers are patriots, after all. Right?
Was the article published because the CIA wanted the news out there? Perhaps more important was the point of the article to influence the Congressional budget deliberations on aid to Ukraine? After all, was the article really just meant to brag about how great the CIA is? Or was it to warn Congressional appropriators, “Look how much we’ve accomplished to confront the Russian bear. You wouldn’t really let it all go to waste, would you?â€
The Times’ article has all the hallmarks of a deep, inside look at a sensitive—possibly classified—subject. It goes into depth on one of the intelligence community’s Holy of Holies, an intelligence liaison relationship, something that no intelligence officer is ever supposed to discuss. But in the end, it really isn’t so sensitive. It doesn’t tell us anything that every American hasn’t already assumed. Maybe we hadn’t had it spelled out in print before, but we all believed that the CIA was helping Ukraine fight the Russians. We had already seen reporting that the CIA had “boots on the ground†in Ukraine and that the U.S. government was training Ukrainian special forces and Ukrainian pilots, so there’s nothing new there.
The article goes a little further in detail, although, again, without providing anything that might endanger sources and methods. For example, it tells us that:
- There is a CIA listening post in the forest along the Russian border, one of 12 “secret†bases the US maintains there. One or more of these posts helped to prove Russia’s involvement in the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That’s great. But the revelation exposes no secrets and tells us nothing new.
- Ukrainian intelligence officials helped the Americans “go after†the Russian operatives “who meddled in the 2016 US presidential election.†I have a news flash for the New York Times: The Mueller report found that there was no meaningful Russian meddling in the 2016 election. And what does “go after†mean?
- Beginning in 2016, the CIA trained an “elite Ukrainian commando force known as Unit 2245, which captured Russian drones and communications gear so that CIA technicians could reverse-engineer them and crack Moscow’s encryption systems.†This is exactly what the CIA is supposed to do. Honestly, if the CIA hadn’t been doing this, I would have suggested a class action lawsuit for the American people to get their tax money back. Besides, the CIA has been doing things like this for decades. The CIA was able to obtain important components of Soviet tactical weapons from ostensibly pro-Soviet Romania in the 1970s.
- Ukraine has turned into an intelligence-gathering hub that has intercepted more Russian communications than the CIA station in Kiev could initially handle. Again, I would expect nothing less. After all, that’s where the war is. So of course, communications will be intercepted there. As to the CIA station being overwhelmed, the Times never tells us if that is because the station was a one-man operation at the time or whether it had thousands of employees and was still overwhelmed. It’s all about scale.
- And lest you think that the CIA and the U.S. government were on the offensive in Ukraine, the article makes clear that, “Mr. Putin and his advisers misread a critical dynamic. The CIA didn’t push its way into Ukraine. U.S. officials were often reluctant to fully engage, fearing that Ukrainian officials could not be trusted, and worrying about provoking the Kremlin.â€
It’s at this point in the article that the Times reveals what I believe to be the buried lead: “Now these intelligence networks are more important than ever, as Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is more dependent on sabotage and long-range missile strikes that require spies far behind enemy lines. And they are increasingly at risk: “If Republicans in Congress end military funding to Kiev, the CIA may have to scale back.†(Emphasis mine.)
This is the difference between an article in the mainstream media that purports to be a breakthrough in national security reportage and a revelation from a national security whistleblower. In the former, there is cooperation from serving intelligence officers and, sometimes, policymakers, all of whom are anonymous. There is apparently no effort by the intelligence community to kill the piece or to soften its impact. (After all, it makes them look good.) No real secrets are revealed. And there is a policy lesson at the end of the story: Fund more war or the bad guys will win. Trust us. If you knew what we know…
In cases where the revelations are not authorized, the CIA director will call the newspaper’s publisher directly to protest that publication will put American lives or ongoing operations in danger and will cause grave harm to national security, whether that’s actually true or not. If there is pushback from the publisher, he or she can then expect a call from the national security advisor. It’s all very official and threatening, which is exactly the point.
One of the reasons that I believe the Times article was “authorized†by the intelligence community is because of what isn’t in it. There’s no mention, for example, that the United Nations has deemed Ukraine to be one of the most corrupt countries in the world, where money just seems to disappear into foreign accounts and the pockets of Ukrainian government officials. There’s no mention that Ukraine has become a “supermarket†for black market weapons and that western weapons meant for the war effort have popped up all over the world. And there is no mention at all that it was the CIA and the State Department that were responsible for the 2014 overthrow of the Ukrainian government in the first place, an action that resulted in Russia’s decision to invade eight years later.
I know the CIA well. I spent 15 years there, both in analysis and in counterterrorism operations. I know how CIA leaders think, how they push the legal and ethical envelope until somebody in a position of authority tells them “stop!†I’ve sat in on meetings where decisions like those in the New York Times article have been made. I’ve participated in strategy sessions where CIA officers worked to manipulate politics and policy.
The bottom line here is rather simple. Don’t believe them. Don’t believe either the CIA or the New York Times. Seldom are these major international issues so simple and so divided easily between good guys and bad guys. Life should be so easy. Years ago, when my eldest sons were little boys, I took them to Madison Square Garden to see a WWE “professional wrestling†show. A half-hour into it, I asked my then-nine-year-old, “So, I’m confused. Who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy.†He responded, “That’s just it, dad. There is no good guy.†That’s exactly what we’re seeing in Ukraine. Don’t let the New York Times convince you otherwise.
Goes to show you why the Russians sent in columns to overthrow the Jew King of Kiev.
Also how easily Lira could have been bundled back to the US.
Also why spooks like John Johnson are so insolently invested in continuing the supply of arms.
Good to see a US prisoner of conscience here to call out CIA crime. This puff piece will help Russia convict and hang Marlowe at the postwar tribunal in Khabarovsk. The judge there will be the first guy to ask, Who thought it was a good idea to breach absolute sanctified rule of law with armed foreign interference? And who thought up extermination of Russophone minorities? And systematic and widespread torture of POWs? And medical experimentation for germ warfare? And sabotage of macro-scale regional infrastructure?
CIA branched out all its core lines of business in Ukraine, gunrunning, sabotage, banned biological weapons, systematic murder and torture. These fuckin psychos are gonna get us nuked. You can try and hang them yourself for their gravest crimes, or let Russia do it when you’re just a shadow on concrete.
It’s gotten sickening to live in this Empire of Lies and have to sort through all the lying, fabrication, deception and false flags to try to gain an understanding of what’s happening. It appears that Russian sources provide more accurate accounts than the highly budgeted Western media. This isn’t helped by the fact that most of my fellow citizens make a minimal effort to scout out the facts and prefer to watch the crappy media entertainment shows cranked out daily. Everything has a propaganda twist as CIA helps ‘Ukraine’ fight ‘Putin’. The breakaway eastern regions of Ukraine were Ukrainian citizens and thus Ukrainians themselves so it was Ukrainian vs Ukrainian until the latter decided to exit that dysfunctional dictatorial state run by murderous gangsters. I guess it helps the narrative to personalize things and attribute it all to just one person in the form of Putin which plays into the short attention span of most people along with the demonization campaign.
Good to see not only the CIA but the Establishment’s servile The New York Times called out by newer voices here. See also, The CIA in Ukraine — the NY Times Gets a Guided Tour (Patrick Lawrence • February 29, 2024) for a closer look at the “journalism.â€
the cia is the news, the mighty wurlitzer accompanying the mocking bird chorus, is all there is, in the mainstream. 6 corporations totally controlling the national narrative, driving dark agendas, shaping minds as well as policies and manufacturing consent. that’s just what they do, the only journalism left is independent and buried deep, to insure that you will have to do a deep dive to find them. most people can’t swim and are happy splashing around in the kiddy pool of the msm.
the fourth estate has been given a promotion, to fifth column.
That article justifies Russian intervention.
The CIA has been in Ukraine since 1945 after it took over the Nazi intelligence group for the Soviet Union. Details here:
Video Link
The author admittedly says he spend 15 years in the CIA, I wonder what else is on his resume?
CIA naturally wants to keep the war going. They have a puerile concept of all’s fair in war based on their “plausible deniability” fig leaf. But that fig leaf blew away with UNTOC ratification, and CIA’s grave or serious crimes have no national security protection.
This also explains their frenzy for the arbitrary detention of Julian Assange. Assange exposed CIA crimes with no statute of limitations, as Fitzgerald pointed out pointedly.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/02/assange-final-appeal-day-2-your-man-in-the-public-gallery/
CIA dead-enders are in some deep shit. The lawmen have got the house surrounded.
https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/the-bitter-pill-of-decisive-strategic
Marlowe, Gina, Avril, Brennan, Blee, all those vermin gonna swing.
I see Sweden like Denmark have closed down their investigation into one of the largest sabotage efforts in human history because they couldn’t find anything…who did they get to head the investigation…Inspector Jacques Clouseau?
Kiriakou misreads the meaning of the key paragraph in the New York Times’ article.
It’s at this point in the article that the Times reveals what I believe to be the buried lead: “Now these intelligence networks are more important than ever, as Russia is on the offensive and Ukraine is more dependent on sabotage and long-range missile strikes that require spies far behind enemy lines. ”
( it then continues )
And they are increasingly at risk: “If Republicans in Congress end military funding to Kiev, the CIA may have to scale back.†(Emphasis mine.)
So the writers are worried that ending military funding will result in the reduction of sabotage and long-range missile strikes by Ukraine. But they say in the first part that Russia is on the offensive, ie winning. In a large scale conventional war – which is what this is – the Ukrainian tactics of sabotage, terrorist attacks on civilians and intermittent missile attacks are not successful tactics. They are nothing more than pinpricks.
I think the first part is preparing NYT readers – the small minority not completely brainwashed – for Ukrainian defeat. As the article is a CIA sponsored promotional, the hacks have to put an unconvincing gloss on this. Hence the second part. Millions will be crying because those bad Republicans stopped CIA sabotage in Russia. We wish.