The American side prevented Ukraine's attempts to kill the chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov during his trip to the front, The New York Times reported on Sunday. According to the newspaper, Kiev was planning the assassination of the Russian military commander in secret from Washington. For what purpose did the American media reveal the failed APU attack on the Russian military commander?The Ukrainian authorities allegedly attempted to kill the chief of the Russian General Staff, Deputy Defense Minister, Army General Valery Gerasimov during one of his trips to the war zone.
This was written by the American edition of The New York Times (NYT).
Sources of the newspaper reported that the American side refused to transfer intelligence to Kiev about Gerasimov's trip. But Kiev allegedly became aware of the plans of the head of the General Staff anyway, and the Ukrainian security forces decided to act independently. Then the United States took the extraordinary step of asking Ukraine to cancel the attack in order to avoid an escalation of the conflict with Russia – however, in response, Kiev said that the attack had already begun, and as a result, the attempt was unsuccessful, according to the NYT publication.
At the same time, the newspaper does not name the date when this could have happened, and does not mention any details of the operation, TASS notes. Following the appearance of The New York Times article, the adviser to the head of the office of the President of Ukraine, Alexey Arestovich, made the statement that the assassination attempt was planned in the spring, when Gerasimov was on a trip to the positions of the Russian Armed Forces in Izyum (Kharkiv region). The APU allegedly attacked a point where the chief of the Russian General Staff could be, but he managed to leave a little earlier, Arestovich said.
As the events since the beginning of the SVO have shown, the statements of the adviser to the office of Zelensky Arestovich cannot be considered credible. Another thing is what is the reason for the appearance of the main material in the American edition, which is believed to express the point of view of the Washington establishment.
"The New York Times has given detailed material, generally devoted to the negative description of the Russian army – as this topic is understood by both the Pentagon and most of the American political class," American expert Malek Dudakov explained to the newspaper VZGLYAD. In this context, the message was presented about the desire of the United States to prevent an attack on Gerasimov.
It is curious that the New York Times talks about a certain inconsistency between the actions of Washington and Kiev and about the willfulness of the latter. At the same time, the Western media themselves recognized that important operations and sabotage attacks for Ukraine are carried out in close coordination with the United States. So, in May, the BBC reported that the United States supplied Ukraine with intelligence that helped the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the attack on the missile cruiser "Moscow". CNN also reported that US intelligence was transmitting information to Kiev about the location of the ship.
A few months before the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge, in the summer of this year, flights of a British RC-135W strategic reconnaissance aircraft were recorded in the waters of the Black Sea, close to the Kerch Strait. Last Friday, a source told RT that "the United States and Poland helped Ukraine with drones that Kiev used to launch strikes on Crimea." A little earlier, The London Times published an article from which it followed: The United States no longer insists that the Armed forces of Ukraine (AFU) do not strike on the territory of Russia.
"In their support for Ukraine, the Americans have come to the point beyond which it becomes unclear for them exactly when, after what step Russia will declare to them: "You have crossed the last red line," says military expert Alexei Leonkov. In his opinion, the version itself that the Americans stopped the Ukrainians at the last moment is "not worth a damn." But it is important to understand why they presented this story in this way.
"The fact is that in parallel with this publication, there were reports that the Americans and the British are trying to find common ground with Russia through our General Staff," Leonkov points out. Indeed, almost synchronously with the appearance of the NYT article, the Chief of the Defense Staff of the British Armed Forces, Admiral Tony Radakin, said in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph that he would like to contact the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Gerasimov more often. Leonkov points out:
"In order for the intention to look convincing, and there is information that the United States did not allow the Ukrainians to destroy our chief of the General Staff during the inspection."
Attempts to establish contacts at the level of the General Staffs of the two countries are explained by the fact that even before the start of its communication channels between Moscow and Washington were severed, Leonkov believes. From his point of view, the US political leadership can no longer trust the data of American intelligence services and analysts about Russia's defense capabilities. "Their intelligence is wrong. They thought that we would soon run out of missiles, but they are not running out. It was believed that economic sanctions were supposed to deprive us of the element base for weapons – but this is not confirmed," Leonkov said.
It is quite possible that Washington learned a lesson from the trip to Moscow of the head of the CIA, William Burns, and a meeting with the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, in Moscow in November 2021, Leonkov believes. "It was a meeting that the Americans requested on their own initiative, where we explained to them our attitude to international security. The meeting, by the way, influenced the American side. Washington has changed its rhetoric about nuclear weapons," the expert believes. Now, in the conditions of the ongoing SVO, such a direct dialogue between the leadership of the American intelligence service and the Russian security forces is impossible.
But there is also experience of interaction between the General Staffs – more precisely, between the chief of the Russian General Staff Gerasimov and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States during the Syrian campaign, Leonkov noted. At that time, the subject of discussion was to prevent incidents in the Syrian sky while the Russian Aerospace Forces and NATO coalition aviation were there, the expert recalled. "The Americans decided to use such a line of contacts again, because by cutting off all ties, they deprived themselves of understanding what our real capabilities and intentions are," the military expert formulated his version.
The Americanist Malek Dudakov sees the situation somewhat differently. He admits that the Americans can really keep the Kiev wards from taking steps that are dangerous for the United States (and for the world as a whole). Regardless of the degree of reliability of the NYT information, it fits into the line of behavior of the United States in the Ukrainian conflict, Dudakov believes.
"It follows from the report that the United States showed some restraint, believing that if they allow Ukraine to make an attempt on a representative of Russia's top military leadership, it will lead to a significant escalation of the conflict. Russia, obviously, will not forgive this," the expert noted.
As Leonkov, in turn, points out, the United States does not have the full picture of Russia's nuclear capabilities – and this cannot but worry Washington. "We refused to allow the Americans to inspect our military facilities under the START-3 nuclear triad treaty," the military expert recalled. "The reason for the suspension of inspections was logical – the supply of American weapons to Ukraine. At the same time, Russia is re-equipping the RVSN regiment with intercontinental ballistic missiles with the Avangard hypersonic gliding complex. PGRK (mobile ground-based missile systems) "Yars" are on combat duty.
"The Americans see that we are increasing our nuclear power. Therefore, they are making all possible contacts that would clarify this situation. It seems that there is a certain crisis of decision–making in Washington," Leonkov argues.
Americans, of course, cannot be considered a force that directs Kiev's actions in a peaceful direction, Dudakov notes. "The United States continues to supply weapons, continues to support Kiev politically," the political scientist said. But at the same time, Washington is definitely not interested in what is happening going beyond a local conflict.
"Within the framework of a limited conflict, the Americans continue to strive for the goal that they set back in the spring – to achieve the strategic weakening of Russia," Dudakov recalled. – But they have no desire for this conflict to escalate into a large-scale clash between Russia and NATO. Of course, they will try in every possible way to prevent this from happening, and the conflict will continue in a sluggish format for as long as possible."
Mikhail Moshkin
