Since the Ukraine proxy war’s eruption, a shadowy cabal of British academics has secretly advised the US National Security Council on escalatory strategies. Many of their recommendations - some inspired by ISIS - have been adopted by Washington. It’s uncertain whether one of the boldest proposals - to train Ukrainian snipers on American soil - was one way or another greenlit. More gravely, this effort was intended to set a trap for the Biden administration, luring the US into deeper involvement in the conflict.

A leaked document, authored in April 2022 by St. Andrews University lecturer and the British cabal’s chief NSC contact Marc DeVore, sets out a bold vision for Washington’s “non-profit associations, civil society and private sector businesses” to tutor Ukrainian sharpshooters. US citizens were reputed to possess “the wherewithal and…motivation to provide such training,” while DeVore judged Donbass’ “slow-moving” battlefield - with its emphasis on “urban combat” - to be “an environment ideal for snipers.”

DeVore believed neither Ukraine nor Russia were “well-provided with snipers”, due to their common military “Soviet heritage”. By contrast, the US was “ideally placed to help Ukraine fill this ‘sniper gap’”, due to the country’s “surfeit of snipers, including US Army and Marine Corps veterans with experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the police snipers belonging to large numbers of SWAT teams.” Moreover, DeVore venerated “high standards of civilian marksmanship” in the US, due to “large” national networks of “rifle ranges and shooting clubs.” 

The ability to purchase “the world’s most competitive sniper rifles” legally Stateside was an added bonus. Nonetheless, the true icing on the cake, per DeVore, was triangulating the Biden administration into formally endorsing Western arming and training of Ukrainian forces. The academic bemoaned how to date, Washington had been “timid” in offering direct assistance to Kiev, such as avoiding “overtly providing heavy weaponry”, due to “excessive fears of Russian retaliation/escalation,” and a “desire to maintain…deniability” in delivering such assistance.

As such, DeVore believed the sniper training program would offer war-ravenous Republicans the opportunity to “pressure and shame the [US] government into more overtly training Ukrainian forces,” and “openly [criticise] the President for not using the government’s resources to do so.” The academic predicted Biden would “respond to this criticism by publicly revealing more of the US government’s training activities.” That, combined with “Russia’s likely non-response”, would “open the door for the US to further increase the training and equipment it is providing,” DeVore fantasised.

“However, the Biden Administration [responds] to the private-sector training would hand hawkish Republicans a victory,” he forecast. A US-based Ukrainian sniper training program “would also give Republican politicians valuable talking points” for attacking the President. Were the White House to resultantly increase open support for Kiev, “then Republicans could claim credit for forcing him to do so.” If Biden alternatively “sought to circumscribe the training,” gun rights organisations and opposition governors could “wage a popular legal battle against the federal government” to force its reinstatement. 

Both would “stand to benefit substantially from the positive public relations” generated both by overseeing the sniper training program, and the ensuing opportunity to “embarrass the Biden administration much more” over its supposedly lackluster backing for the proxy conflict. Still, the ultimate goal was to ensure “much more widespread training of Ukrainian military personnel in the West.” US acquiescence was “necessary for NATO to be able to enhance Ukrainian military capabilities to such a level that Ukraine can bring this war to an acceptable conclusion.”

DeVore drew inspiration for the project from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, when US military magazine Soldier Of Fortune instigated sniper training for Bosniaks and Croats fighting Belgrade’s forces. The outlet, read by wannabe mercenaries and US army veterans, was founded by Robert K. Brown, a retired Lieutenant Colonel “who felt deeply sympathetic to the Croatians and Bosnians fighting for their independence.” Brown thus bankrolled and encouraged readers “with sniping experience” to travel to the region, “and organize a crash course” for sharpshooters.

Related News

How Islamophobia became a tool of Western politics

Manufacturing civil war: The Zionist doctrine to destroy resistance

Locals who were “pretty good shots” were identified, “and swiftly trained...to a standard where they contributed powerfully” to their wars against the Yugoslav army. Moreover, pupils “wrote articles on their activities for Soldier of Fortune, selling magazines and raising awareness” of their independence struggles. DeVore sought to repeat the success of this “non-governmental” training on a “larger scale”.  He envisaged enlisting “firearms related non-profits and businesses…to contribute to bringing this about.”

DeVore believed “ideally”, a “major national gun rights” organisation in the US, such as the National Rifle Association “or one of its rivals” would “play a coordinating role.” He foresaw “rifle ranges [being] asked to donate range time, ammunition makers to contribute bullets, and individuals with relevant marksmanship or sniper experience to volunteer their skills.” Pro-proxy war state governors “could also publicly embrace the movement by allowing state forests and National Guard facilities to be used for training”:

“Launching a civil society sniper training program in the [US] could therefore benefit from ideal circumstances, including; a networking of long range ranges where marksmen can be trained; highly skilled snipers and firearms instructors capable of teaching Ukrainians both the fieldcraft and weapons skills they need, and; a significant Ukrainian diaspora in the USA and Canada who could provide volunteers for training.”

DeVore went on to declare that “a large number” Ukrainians living abroad “who want to fight” in the proxy war were “being held back by their [lack] of experience,” suggesting “offering specialist training to…volunteers” among Kiev’s diaspora. Once taught, they would “return home with valuable skills, materially aiding Ukraine’s cause.” More generally, “if friendly governments and civilians help by training critical specialists, it will speed up the process of forming new units and make those that are formed significantly more effective.”

DeVore believed the training should “take place in a two stage process.” First, students would be taught “marksmanship”, during which they fired “thousands of rounds of ammunition to develop the necessary accuracy, rifle maintenance and range estimation skills” at rifle ranges across the US. “The infrastructure and teaching skills needed for this variety of training are fairly common,” he wrote, adding, “the dispersed nature of the training would simplify the accommodation of trainees,” with only a “small number” of pupils housed “near each individual range”.

Once trainees achieved “an adequate level of marksmanship,” they would be schooled by former snipers “in the more specialized skills of camouflage, concealment, infiltration, stalking and other forms of tradecraft.” DeVore proposed conducting this phase “in a combination of forested lands and simulated urban environments” - “large disused factories such as exist in the upper Midwest would be ideal for this purpose.” Upon completing this cycle, “snipers will be transported to Ukraine, where they can put their new-found skills to use.”

DeVore suggested “positive publicity” from being associated with the program “would be a major inducement for guns rights groups” due to “Financial corruption scandals and the need to defend permissive firearms laws in the wake of mass shootings,” which have “tarnished the image” of these organisations at home and abroad. “Training volunteer snipers for a popular war would provide a public relations bonanza for the organization that spearheads the effort,” the academic mused.

If training for Ukrainian snipers was provided on US soil, it wasn’t conducted in the highly public, politicised manner DeVore advocated. Nonetheless, the mainstream media has acknowledged Kiev’s sharpshooters are dependent on high-end American-made rifles and ammunition, and ongoing shipments of this equipment are no secret. Yet, the profusion of US sniper rifles on the battlefields of Donbass has failed to tilt the frontline in Ukraine’s favour one inch - in the precise manner of so many other British-influenced and concocted proxy war grand schemes.

As this journalist has extensively documented, all Kiev’s gravest military disasters, such as the October 2023 - June 2024 Krynky catastrophe, were planned in London. That effort saw wave after wave of British-trained Ukrainian marines attempt to secure a beachhead in Russian-occupied territory, before marching on Crimea and outright victory in the war. Planning was heavily-informed by a desire to recreate the Normandy landings - D-Day - based on fantastical, Hollywood conceptions of that operation. Coincidentally, so too was DeVore’s sniper training program.

In the leaked document, DeVore suggested his plan would have significant political and public appeal due to “the popularity of fictional resistance narratives, going back to Red Dawn.” In that movie, a gang of American teenage guerrillas successfully beat back an invasion of the US by Soviet forces - a compelling filmic narrative, but hardly a basis for actual war-fighting tactics, one might reasonably think. Such are the dangers of outsourcing battle strategy to academics thousands of miles removed from the frontline, with no military experience.