The New York Times reports this:

U.S. officials said the drone attack on the Kremlin earlier this month was likely orchestrated by one of Ukraine’s special military or intelligence units, the latest in a series of covert actions against Russian targets that have unnerved the Biden administration.

U.S. intelligence agencies do not know which unit carried out the attack and it was unclear whether President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top officials were aware of the operation, though some officials believe Mr. Zelensky was not.

This is not the first time U.S. intelligence has told us, through the Times, that a daring or provocative attack was carried about by Ukrainians who have no ties to the government of Volodymyr Zelensky.

Back in March, we got a similar story:

New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.

U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.

And before that, the New York Times reported on the assassination of Dugin’s daughter this way:

United States intelligence agencies believe parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the car bomb attack near Moscow in August that killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist, an element of a covert campaign that U.S. officials fear could widen the conflict. [emphasis mine]

Now, it’s been very clear for years that the elected government of Ukraine has never had full control over all the nationalist militias that operate in Ukraine.

There are a few possibilities here: It’s possible these stories in the New York Times could all be fake news, backed by our intelligence agencies, trying to protect the government in Ukraine from being held responsible by Russia (or the American public) for attacks that might lead Russia to escalate the war.

But it’s also possible that these are partially or wholly true about the state of play in Ukraine. But that presents real problems for the United States and Western powers, the chief sponsors and suppliers of the Ukrainian war effort. The war effort in the West has been sold under the moral image of Zelensky personally. He’s been on the cover of Vogue, and Bono drew his portrait for the cover of The Atlantic. But, if these reports are true, it means a significant body of nationalist and anti-Russian action in Ukraine does not take orders from him.

And naturally, it leads to the question: Should we continue to give heavy weaponry to a government that has lost the monopoly of force and sovereign command in its own struggle for national liberation? Presumably, we make deals with the Ukrainian government about how and where our weapons can be used, in order to prevent us from being sucked into the war as full belligerents. But, the nameless groups that U.S. intelligence has credited with assassinations, the blowing up of major European infrastructure, and direct attacks on the Kremlin can make no such promises to America’s government or her people.

For those who view this war as nothing more or less than the story of good versus evil, none of these details matter. But for those charged with responsibly stewarding American resources and managing our geopolitical risks that affect American people, it’s a troubling pattern.