This article was originally posted on Twitter.
In its report on the August 20 car bomb assassination in Moscow of Darya Dugina, daughter of the Russian fascist Alexander Dugin, the New York Times hastened to declare that there “was no evidence that the attack was connected to the war in Ukraine…”
The Times cited, without a hint of skepticism, the denial of Ukraine’s involvement by Zelensky adviser Mykhailo Podolyak: “Ukraine certainly had nothing to do with yesterday’s explosion. We are not a criminal state like the Russian Federation, much less a terrorist one.”
But today, the Times has posted an article headlined, “U.S. believes Ukrainians were behind an assassination in Russia.” It reports:
United States intelligence agencies believe parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the car bomb attack … that killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist, an element of a covert campaign that U.S. officials fear could widen the conflict.
The Times states: “The United States took no part in the attack, either by providing intelligence or other assistance, officials said. American officials also said they were not aware of the operation ahead of time and would have opposed the killing had they been consulted.”
The article continues: “Afterward, American officials admonished Ukrainian officials over the assassination,” and adds, “The closely held assessment of Ukrainian complicity, which has not been previously reported, was shared within the U.S. government last week.”
The denial of involvement by the US lacks any credibility. The Kiev regime is a creation of the US-instigated 2014 Maidan coup, and the dependence of its military on US armaments and intelligence services is an established fact.
Just three days before Dugina’s assassination, the Times published an article headlined: “Behind Enemy Lines, Ukrainians Tell Russians ‘You Are Never Safe.’” Correspondent Andrew Kramer wrote:
They sneak down darkened alleys to set explosives. They identify Russian targets for Ukrainian artillery and long-range rockets provided by the United States. They blow up rail lines and assassinate officials they consider collaborators with the Russians.
Kramer described Ukrainian use of car bombs in assassinations: “They first cut an electrical wire, blacking out a streetlight, then dashed quickly into the darkness where they planted a bomb, wrapped in tape with the sticky side facing outward, into a wheel well.
“The fishing line was taped both to the inside of the wheel and to a detonator, rigging the bomb to explode when the wheel turned.”
Kramer named the Ukrainian military units “responsible for overseeing operations behind enemy lines … the military intelligence service, known as HUR, and Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces.” Nothing Kramer reported was unknown to US intelligence.
It is nothing less than preposterous to suggest that Ukraine could have carried out a high-level killing in Moscow without US knowledge and approval.
However, the question arises: Why have US intelligence agencies leaked to the Times a report that implicates Zelensky’s regime in the Moscow assassination? Why does it report that it has admonished Ukraine for this operation?
Can it be that the report indicates US concern over the political fallout from a more recent operation that is of far greater international consequence than the Moscow assassination? The unexplained bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline comes to mind.
My guess is that the purpose of the “exposure” of the Moscow assassination is to provide the Biden administration with a degree of “plausible deniability” should Ukrainian involvement in the Nord Stream bombing become known. So Kramer now writes:
While the Pentagon and spy agencies have shared sensitive battlefield intelligence with the Ukrainians, helping them zero in on Russian command posts, supply lines and other key targets, the Ukrainians have not always told American officials what they plan to do.
The United States has pressed Ukraine to share more about its war plans, with mixed success. Earlier in the war, U.S. officials acknowledged that they often knew more about Russian war plans—thanks to their intense collection efforts—than they did about Kyiv’s intentions.
Using language that sounds like a carefully constructed alibi, Kramer writes: “U.S. officials also lack a complete picture of the competing power centers within the Ukrainian government, including the military, the security services and Mr. Zelensky’s office.”
It is no less likely that the Biden administration lacks “a complete picture of the competing power centers” within the CIA, the military and countless other segments of the vast US national security state, and cannot control all the covert operations under way in Ukraine.
This reality underscores the recklessness of the US-instigated war. An event can take place, with or without the approval of the Biden administration, that can trigger a drastic escalation of the conflict, all the way to thermonuclear war.