Before reading this article, I sincerely invite you to click the "Follow" button, so that you can push new articles for you as soon as possible in the future, and also facilitate you to discuss and share. Your support is the motivation for me to persist in creating ~
In October 2025, the British "Financial Times" dropped a blockbuster: the United States not only "sided" with Ukraine, but also directly participated in the attack on energy targets in Russia.
Not simply to give a little information, not to say in the mouth, is really involved in the strike route planning, flight route calculation, drone attack time selection of these key links.
After the incident was exposed, the three parties, whether it was the White House, Kiev, or even the Kremlin, which has always been ruthless, surprisingly unanimously chose to remain silent. This abnormal "collective silence" is even more dazzling than open confrontation.
Is intelligence sharing an illusion?
The content disclosed by the media far exceeds the scope of "providing information". The United States not only provides Ukraine with data on key energy facilities in Russia, but is also deeply involved in tactical preparations for every strike.
From target screening, to flight trajectory design that circumvents air defense systems, to precise attack timing, Americans are everywhere. In the past, the United States emphasized that it was only "assisting Uzbekistan in self-defense," but details this time revealed that the United States provided not only map coordinates, but also an action script.
The high success rate and accurate path selection of Ukraine drones in attacking refineries in the Russian rear are actually behind the "technical signature" of US military tactical personnel. Even the altitude at which the drone flies is calculated by the United States to avoid Russian radars as much as possible.
More importantly, this is not a random tactical collaboration, but a set of systemic support mechanisms. U.S. intelligence agencies have formed a fixed process of cooperation with operational advisors, and once the Ukrainian side has locked the target, the U.S. rapidly carries out tactical analysis, assisting in developing the optimal attack plan. This model is difficult to explain with "assistance", more like "agent command".
This cooperation is not limited to the United States and Uzbekistan. Sources revealed that the United States is also urging NATO allies to provide similar support and expand the tactical support network. From intelligence sharing to strike planning, the level of US involvement has reached its core.
Silence is like a script
The full exposure of a substantive military operation involving three countries should logically trigger a series of diplomatic statements, accusations, and clarifications. But this time, the White House did not respond, the President's Office of Ukraine remained silent, and the Russian Foreign Ministry did not move.
This kind of silence is not common on the international political stage, especially in highly open conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine War. The United States does not want to express its position in order to maintain its image of "responsibility neutrality" in the international arena. Once admitting to participating in drone strikes, it is equivalent to self-proving that the "proxy war" is true.
The Trump administration is currently facing pressure from domestic elections, and if held on the hat of "expanding the war", it is likely to raise voter doubts. Ukraine is concerned that its military independence could be questioned once it recognizes the U.S.' deep involvement in military action.
Ukraine has always hoped to create the image of "independent counterattack" rather than "being commanded to fight." Moreover, over-exposing the details of cooperation with the United States may cause dissatisfaction among other donors and even affect the pace of aid.
Russia's silence is more like a plan. The Kremlin has repeatedly accused the West of manipulating behind the scenes. If it overreacted this time, it would actually confirm the situation of "a frontal conflict between the United States and Russia." It is better to wait until we wait and see whether the United States further escalates its actions.
More importantly, the Russian side may be saving money for the next phase of diplomatic counter-terrorism and public opinion offensive. This three-party silent "silence" is forced to question: is everyone in their hearts numbered and does not want to be the first to provoke?
This is not without precedent. In the past, when the U.S. military assisted the Ukrainian army in launching the "Haima" rocket launcher, there was a similar "silent processing" pattern. It was only gradually revealed by the media that the information was so backlog that it could not be concealed. This time, the difference is that the information exposed is more specific, the degree of intervention is deeper, and the space left by silence is more thought-provoking.
Tactical support is just the surface
Why should the United States deeply interfere in Ukraine’s long-range strikes against Russia?The reason is not complicated.The appearance of cooperation with Ukraine to weaken Russian military logistics is essentially a blow to economic vitality.
Oil refineries, power systems, transportation hubs, these infrastructures, once continuously hit, will not only delay the scheduling of the Russian military front, but also affect the overall energy export capacity of Russia.
Since the beginning of the war, the U.S. has gradually established an "operational cooperation mechanism" with Ukraine.In 2023, the U.S. will provide Ukraine with information about Russian military deployments, ammunition warehouses, communications nodes and more in the name of "intelligence sharing".
By 2024, this support has been extended to precision strike guidance. After 2025, as Russia gradually withdraws its front line, the United States began to strengthen its technical support for long-range strikes and assist Uzbekistan in expanding its strike radius. The shift from "defensive support" to "deep destruction" is a clear turning point in the US battlefield strategy.
At the same time, the U.S. is also testing Russia’s response threshold.Each successful airstrike is a “psychological stress test” against Moscow.If the Russian side does not make a substantial counterattack, the U.S. can confirm its “grey operating space”.
Of course, the strategic goal behind it is far greater: by continuing to consume Russia, putting it under pressure on the three lines of war, economy and diplomacy, and eventually being forced to sit at the negotiating table.
Not the war in Ukraine.
This war, from the beginning, was not just a dispute between Ukraine and Russia.Each step of the US operation, from intelligence support to combat participation, from tactical control to weapons supply, has put this war on the coat of "agent war".
The Trump administration has also recently been discussing whether to provide Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Once such weapons are delivered, Ukraine's strike will extend deeper into Russia. This means that the United States is not only providing combat plans, but is already setting the stage for further upgrades.
This combination of "deep intervention + tacit silence" seems smart, but the consequences cannot be underestimated. The foundation of trust in the international community is being consumed. Originally neutral countries, such as India, Brazil, and Indonesia, began to question the double standards of the West for war.
The United States claims to “support peace” while participating in attack command behind the scenes, which is difficult to conquer. In the long run, this operation will undermine the stability of international rules. War is becoming more and more “technologized”, more and more “hidden”, countries remain restrained in the face, and behind it often take hands.
Once this trend forms a routine, it will make it more difficult to mediate future regional conflicts and define responsibilities. The more realistic question is, can Ukraine still maintain strategic autonomy under this "high-intensity dependence"? Once the reconstruction stage is entered after the war, who will take the lead? Who will pay the bill? These questions, which no one wants to answer today, will be spread on the table sooner or later.
A silent war
The "collective silence" of the United States, Ukraine and Russia is not accidental, but a strategic silence. Each party is clear about its role and understands that the more they talk, the greater the commotion will be. But silence cannot conceal the reality: this war has evolved into a new type of international game.
The "deep participation" of the United States is changing the shape of war, while the silence of the three parties exposes a greater crisis of trust. What the international community needs is not more remote operations, but practical actions that can truly promote peace.
Otherwise, the war will become more and more like a game with no end, and ordinary people will always be the most silent losers in this game.
Source of information:
Financial Times 'core content on October 12, 2025: Disclosure that U.S. government intelligence agencies and military advisers were "deeply involved" in the planning of Ukraine's attack on Russia's own energy facilities, covering tactical path design, timing, and technical analysis of bypassing air defense systems.