Follow us on social

Shutterstock_2125502228

Pentagon leak reinforces what we already know: US-NATO in it to win

But revelations about American and European boots on the ground are new, and could prove a dangerous and so far unexplained, wrinkle.

Analysis | Europe

The documents on the war in Ukraine leaked from the Pentagon and other U.S. security bodies only confirm what anyone paying attention already knew: that the United States and NATO are massively and critically involved in arming and training Ukraine, and providing detailed intelligence to the Ukrainian armed forces.

Without this help, Ukraine might perhaps be able to stand on the defensive, but it could never hope to launch its planned offensive to recapture the remaining territory lost to Russia. According to the leaked documents, the Pentagon has assessed the most favorable moment for this offensive as mid-May, once the mud created by Spring rains has dried out (and as I can testify from my own trip to Ukraine last month, mud is still a really serious obstacle to movement there).

Nonetheless, the leak provides some interesting granular detail, which with one exception, appears to be genuine. Figures were apparently doctored to make U.S. estimates show higher Ukrainian and lower Russian casualties. But this is a relatively unimportant point, since the documents themselves state that the casualty assessments are of low reliability — as I have found myself in trying to form even a very rough estimate of Ukrainian losses.

The authenticity of the documents has been acknowledged by Pentagon sources, and the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into who was responsible for the leak. Among the details revealed are that nine out of twelve “combat credible” Ukrainian brigades being prepared for the forthcoming offensive are fully trained and equipped by NATO. Training for these troops is being provided not only in the West but by 71 U.S. military personnel who are stationed within Ukraine, together with 97 NATO special operations soldiers.

These numbers are very small, they are not combat units and the leak only confirms what most observers have long assumed. Nonetheless, their presence does obviously create a risk that they will be killed or captured, thereby handing Russia a propaganda victory and creating an impetus to U.S. retaliation and a dangerous cycle of escalation.

It is also important to point out that the American Congress and public, and those of NATO allies, have never been informed that any U.S. and NATO soldiers are on the ground in Ukraine. The French government has denied the suggestion in the documents that French special forces soldiers are present there. This part of the leaked documents raises serious issues of legality and democratic accountability, which Western governments should investigate.

The great success of Ukrainian anti-missile fire against Russian bombardment of Ukrainian infrastructure (to which I can also attest having experienced this in Zaporizhia) has cost the Ukrainians a very large proportion of their Soviet-era S-300 anti-aircraft missiles. The Pentagon documents state that Ukraine may run out of these this month.

This creates a dilemma for the United States, which will either have very quickly to provide Ukraine with many more Patriot missile defense systems — thereby severely depleting its own limited reserves — or risk seeing more Ukrainian infrastructure destroyed; though from my own observations and interviews in Ukraine, the effectiveness of Russia’s bombardment is also seriously limited by the inaccuracy of its missiles, and its apparently limited numbers of heavy ground-attack weapons.

The documents reveal something about the extent and success of U.S. espionage against Russia, especially in the area of signals intelligence. They also hint at U.S. spying against close allies, including South Korea and the United Kingdom. Once again, this is not surprising, given how the United States was once shown to have spied on the private communications of Angela Merkel and other European leaders.

However, it is worth remembering how news of Russian espionage in the United States and Europe was repeatedly used in the years before the war to whip up fear of and hostility to Russia in the West, thereby making it even more difficult to seek diplomatic compromises that might have prevented the Russian invasion. The leaked documents remind us that in this regard there is a strong element of the pot calling the kettle black.


Vilnius, Lithuania - February 16 2022: German army, NATO response force or North Atlantic Treaty Organization armored crawler tanks and other military vehicles on the road of the city with soldiers (Shutterstock/Michele Ursi)
Analysis | Europe
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.