Go to home page

New York Times Pushes White House To Escalate War on Crimea with No Risk

Jan. 19, 2023, 2022 (EIRNS)—The New York Times weighed in yesterday with their article, “U.S. Warms to Helping Ukraine Target Crimea,” putting the push on the Biden White House to stop their nervous Nelly concerns about pushing a nuclear power into a corner. It states:

“After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally starting to concede that Kiev may need the power to strike the Russian sanctuary, even if such a move increases the risk of escalation, according to several U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive debate. The moderation in position has come about as the Biden administration has come to believe that if the Ukrainian military can show Russia that its control of Crimea can be threatened, that would strengthen Kiev’s position in any future negotiations.”

Translation: The U.S. has no chip to negotiate with, so it will risk a thermonuclear confrontation in order to manufacture one.

The New York Times reviews the currently popular “tank coalition” issue—with European tanks and American Bradley personnel carriers, mounted with guided missiles, the Ukrainians can take back Zaporozhye and the Mariupol area of the Donbass, depriving the Russians of a “land bridge” to Crimea. “The Bradleys, along with British tanks and the armored combat vehicles that France and Germany have agreed to send, could be the vanguard of an armored force that Ukraine could employ in a counteroffensive this winter or spring, government and independent analysts say.”

But Biden is nervous about Kiev using long-range missiles, with the aim of provoking a full-scale, direct Russia-NATO brawl—which the leadership in Kiev have been scheming to do. In step the amiable British. Foreign Secretary James Cleverly came to Washington on Jan. 17, to deal with such sensibilities. “We think now is the right time to intensify our support for Ukraine.” He came with the British Defense Ministry latest appraisal: “A major Ukrainian breakthrough in Zaporizhzhia [Zaporozhye] would seriously challenge the viability of Russia’s ‘land bridge.’ ” But their intelligence shows that unfortunately, in recent weeks, Russia has bolstered defensive fortifications in central Zaporozhye. So, just because we want Ukraine’s offensive to succeed, “preliminary attacks could include hitting targets in nearby Crimea.” So, long-range missiles would have to be called into play.

The New York Times admits:

“Ukrainian officials ... see little choice but to target Crimea and put it in jeopardy, a senior U.S. official said, noting that the issue has come up at recent high-level meetings at the White House. Still, Crimea can’t be taken—and such a move could drive Mr. Putin to retaliate with an escalatory response. But, officials said, their assessment now is that Russia needs to believe that Crimea is at risk, in part to strengthen Ukraine’s position in any future negotiations. By demonstrating an ability to strike in Crimea, American officials say, Ukraine could show that Russian control is not established.”

Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official for Ukraine during the Obama administration, is next cited: “Without Crimea, the whole thing falls apart.” So, the risk of adventure now has to be explained away. Frederick B. Hodges, the former top U.S. Army commander in Europe, observes: “It feels to me like increasingly, the administration is recognizing that the threat of Russian escalation is perhaps not what they thought it was earlier.”

How is that? Well, we’ve pushed the Russians and found out that they’ve not launched a nuclear warhead. Dara Massicot, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, explains: “There is more clarity on their tolerance for damage and attacks. Crimea has already been hit many times without a massive escalation from the Kremlin.” The argument is that we’ve taken the measure of the Russians and know what we’re dealing with.

Here the willful delusion of the New York Times and its faction rears its ugly head. When Russia’s security concerns were ignored, did it not launch the special military operation on Feb. 24, 2022? When the bridge to Crimea was targetted for a terror attack, did Russia not end its forbearance and, instead, begin hitting Ukrainian infrastructure targets? How do such “strategic thinkers” determine that Russia and Putin merely bluff?

Back to top    Go to home page clear