Berlin, FRG (Weltexpress). With a sensationalist publication, the Times of London is attempting to whitewash the catastrophic consequences for Ukraine of the British planning of the 2023 military offensive and at the same time position itself as the new leading military power in Western Europe.
Barely two weeks after the New York Times published its own untold story about the extensive role and direct involvement of the US military in the war against Russia in Ukraine, last weekend the Times of London published its own untold story about the no less extensive but far more disastrous role of the British military in Ukraine.
The “untold” story of the New York Times was actually known to all: that the Americans were heavily involved in active combat operations, even against Russian territory before 2022. Even if they didn’t pull the trigger themselves, they prepared the missiles that their Ukrainian subordinates only had to press the fire button to launch.
Yet the New York Times investigation revealed a wealth of information about British involvement in the proxy war that had previously remained largely secret. This Times article appears to be a bizarre mix of limited disclosure, a desperate attempt to hedge its bets, and one of the biggest crises in the history of the proxy war. The revelation of Britain’s role in the Times of London is every bit as comprehensive as we had imagined, but it seems that the Times is yet to truly admit the full extent of Britain’s role. That will come much later.
First of all, we ask the obvious question: why did this British establishment newspaper, read by those people who run the country, publish this story that comes straight from the heart of the Ministry of Defense itself and, as the Times points out, publicly quotes former Ministry of Defense officials? The article talks at length about the role that British defense ministers and senior officials like Wallace, Radekin and others played in what they now call the war against Russia, which London outsourced to Nazi-backed stooges in the Ukrainian government. But why did the Times run this story and why now?
The New York Times revelations, which were considered a sensation on March 29, were hardly news to regular RT DE readers. Basically, they seemed to be an attempt to portray the Biden administration’s policy in Ukraine – and implicitly NATO’s reporting – as a success; had it not been for the stubborn and insubordinate Ukrainian generals who refused to follow the advice of intellectually superior US officers. The NYT article can therefore be seen as a farewell to Ukraine, along the lines of, “Well, we had the best intentions, we did our best, and it’s not our fault that our European allies are useless. The entire blame for the failure has been shifted to Ukraine.”
But as mentioned earlier, there were a number of clues in the NYT piece that also examined the UK’s role.
What really stood out was the influence of Ben Wallace, who, with a single phone call to Kiev, had a Ukrainian field commander who had angered the US by his lack of action in the 2022 counteroffensive dismissed just like that. Another very interesting aspect was the fact that it was the British who urged the Ukrainians to carry out their counter-offensive in the summer of 2023. This ended in utter disaster, with Ukraine sacrificing up to 100,000 people to regain just 0.25 percent of the territory that had been lost to Russia during the initial stages of the proxy war.
This does not reflect well on Britain. Because in addition to the disaster, it had been widely predicted by people who actually knew what they were talking about that it would be a disaster because Russia had built extensive fortifications and defenses such as dragon’s teeth and countless landmines in the territories. Moreover, Ukraine had openly announced its intentions. It was therefore foreseeable that they would not be able to get anywhere near the front line, let alone engage in direct combat with the Russians, without being intercepted long beforehand by deadly Russian artillery or drones.
Of course, you wouldn’t have heard that in the Western mainstream media. That it was the British who urged the Ukrainians to go ahead anyway was a pretty significant, even damning, revelation. This secret history of the British role in Ukraine adds a lot of color to the overall picture. It also acknowledges a fairly extensive British involvement in the planning of the counter-offensive, its execution and its monitoring, to the extent that one of the fronts of the counter-offensive was even named directly after Ben Wallace.
With this in mind, the question of why this Times of London article was published can be answered. It is an attempt to polish the disastrous Ukrainian counter-offensive and present it as positively as possible, although the content is at times pretty damning itself, with Ukrainians saying, “We’re not ready for this”, and the British telling them, “Yes, you are. Don’t worry, it’s fine. Just get on with it. The Russians aren’t very strong.”
In fact, at this point in the war, the British believed that Ukraine had a larger military than Great Britain and that it was equipped for a counter-offensive with tanks, vehicles, material and fighters.
Finally, the Times of London article proudly notes that the US has transferred the chairmanship of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group to the UK. This group was set up at the beginning of the war so that the Western puppet masters of Ukraine could coordinate military support for the war against Russia. The physical absence of the US Secretary of Defense at a recent meeting was seen as another sign that the US is pulling back from the Ukraine war as Europe prepares to dive deeper. The article thus lays the groundwork for greater European, particularly British, involvement in this war, despite documenting the utter disaster of the counter-offensive that the UK was responsible for planning, arming, training and leading.
The overriding aim of the British political and military establishment is now to continue the war at all costs. And that is probably the reason for the talks – and they are mainly talks – about sending some sort of force of British and French soldiers to Ukraine. With this article, the Times seems to be laying the groundwork for greater involvement in the war in Ukraine, especially for more direct control of Ukraine if the Americans go home.
