"It is astonishing that The Atlantic; otherwise among the most vocal defenders of the official American narrative regarding the war in Ukraine, is now publishing a report on the CIA’s direct and extensive role in the warfare against Russia. Yet, the most important question is something else: Why is this article being published right now? I pondered this back when The New York Times, on March 30, 2025, published its major investigation into the United States’ secret military cooperation with Ukraine. At that time, too, the Trump administration found itself in a delicate negotiating position with Moscow. The report revealed how American generals and intelligence officers, operating from the U.S. military base in Wiesbaden, Germany, had participated in the planning and coordination of Ukraine’s war effort. From there, "Task Force Dragon" was directed, a unit in which American and Ukrainian officers jointly established priorities for strikes against Russian forces and military installations. Generals Christopher Donahue, Christopher Cavoli, and Antonio Aguto played central roles. U.S. intelligence personnel provided target identification and precise coordinates. This cooperation encompassed the planning of major offensives, strikes against the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and, eventually, attacks on targets located within Russian territory. One particularly revealing detail concerned "Operation Lunar Hail" a jointly planned campaign targeting approximately one hundred Russian positions in Crimea. American and British officers participated in the detailed planning, down to the specific flight paths of the missiles. When the Biden administration later authorized strikes across the internationally recognized Russian border, the generals in Wiesbaden were also tasked with defining the areas where American intelligence could be used to direct those attacks. It was, therefore, not merely a matter of American arms shipments; the U.S. military was directly involved in the conduct of the war. As early as February 25, 2024, in the midst of the U.S. presidential election year, The New York Times published another in-depth report. By that time, Donald Trump had long since made a promise to end the war in Ukraine a central pillar of his election campaign. The piece, titled "The Spy War: How the C.I.A. Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin," revealed how the CIA had spent nearly a decade helping to build a network of twelve secret intelligence bases along Ukraine’s border with Russia. The CIA had trained Ukrainian intelligence officers, funded and equipped facilities, and developed a partnership that began long before the Russian invasion in 2022. Now, as Trump once again appears to be seeking a deal with Russia, The Atlantic has emerged with new information. According to the report, the CIA plays a leading role among the American personnel operating on the ground in Ukraine. U.S. intelligence is used to guide Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory, while American satellites provide Ukraine with advance warning of incoming Russian missile and drone attacks. A Baltic intelligence officer describes the CIA’s operations during the Trump era as significantly more aggressive than they were under Biden. Furthermore, CIA Director John Ratcliffe personally visited Moscow, where he met with representatives of the Russian security services in August. According to The Atlantic, he attempted to persuade the Russian leadership that the war could not be won militarily. This account raises the question of what an American intelligence chief is there to negotiate and what leverage he brings with him. Most of this has been known in its broad outlines. However, the new details, and, above all, the authoritative confirmations, make it increasingly difficult to maintain the official narrative of the United States as an outside power attempting to mediate peace between two warring parties. And this is where the timing becomes interesting. Trump appears to be seeking a way out of the war through an official policy of peace and diplomacy. The Russians seem prepared to play along, even though both sides are well aware of the extent of U.S. military involvement. For such a diplomatic exit to work, no one necessarily needs to believe the official narrative; it may suffice for both parties to simply accept it. Yet, when major American media outlets, precisely at such junctures, expose the reality behind the scenes, the political narrative becomes harder to sustain. And, consequently, so does the diplomatic exit that such a narrative might otherwise facilitate. Who, then, has an interest in reminding the President of this reality? Within the American security apparatus, the foreign policy establishment, and the defense industry, there are powerful actors who have spent years investing politically, strategically, and economically in the war. For many of them, an American withdrawal would represent a significant defeat. This does not necessarily mean that these reports are coordinated. But their content and timing make it reasonable to ask whose interests they might serve. The implicit message to Trump could be summed up in four words: G e t b a c k i n l i n e. I suspected such a connection as early as when The New York Times published its investigation last spring. We now have three major reports, published over three different years, all during a period when Trump has positioned himself as a politician who wants to end the war. With The Atlantic’s latest report, the pattern emerges even more clearly. The question is not just what is being revealed. But when." By @C_H_Petersen