Thursday, June 9, 2022

Links — 9 June 2022 Part 1

Moon of Alabama
Washington Starts Blame Game Over Defeat In Ukraine

Asia Times
Ukraine – The Situation (June 9)
Uwe Parpart

A Son of the New American Revolution
Is U.S. Intelligence Really this Screwed UP?
Larry C. Johnson | CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering, formerly Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism (1989-1993, and CIA operations (1984-1989)

Reminiscence of the Future
I Am Getting Tired Writing Posts With "No Shit" Or "Duh" Titles)))
Andrei Martyanov, former USSR naval officer and expert on Russian military and naval issues

Reminiscence of the Future
Larry Sounds Off On Intel.
Andrei Martyanov, former USSR naval officer and expert on Russian military and naval issues

The Vineyard of the Saker
Western Foreign Policy Created Ukraine Crisis, is Creating Crisis with China
Brian Berletic

Dances with Bears
John Helmer
Paul Mason Says Bellingcat Launders Information For Western Intelligence (Doh. Bellingcat was created by MI6.)
Caitlin Johnstone

India Punchline
Creating cold war conditions in Asia isn’t easy
M. K. Bhadrakumar | retired diplomat with the Indian Foreign Service and former ambassador

Covert Action Magazine


Joe said...

Of course I know nothing, but why are the Russians fartin' around in the Donbas instead of taking Nickolyav and Odessa? Sevastopol and Odessa make a formidable strategic asset for the Russian navy and losing access to the sea would be quite the punishment for the Ukie's insolence of thinking they could invite the Americans in without consequences.
The rest of Donetsk will almost surely be conceded in any negotiations, so why not take Odessa first?
The realization of US defeat is setting in with little blips here and there of people suggesting Ukraine sue for peace before their situation deteriorates further. When the Russians finish off Donetsk and if the Ukies sue for peace, it'll be more difficult to continue the war as the Russians made such a big deal about the east in their original justifications for the war and Russia and China are pretending to be all about the law based international order, which taking territory for territory's sake is forbidden. Ritter (who seems to be as much hot air as substance) did make an interesting point about Russia's legal justification getting shakier as they continue to achieve objectives.

Tom Hickey said...

why are the Russians fartin' around in the Donbas instead of taking Nickolyav and Odessa?

The short answer is that Russia has publicly stated objectives, which constitutes policy, and a strategic plan to accomplish these policy objectives that it is not revealing, so speculation about the plan is just guessing.

Taking Odessa is not one of the stated policy objectives, and no one knows at this point whether Russia will move in that direction after completing phase two, which is securing Donbas, which could turn out to be the final military objective with respect to territory. Time will tell. Moreover, in war, conditions change and so does the plan in response.

But as Russia takes more territory, its legal position wrt Art 51 becomes weaker. So what makes sense strategically may not make sense in the larger picture.

Joe said...


Imo, from Putin's speech on Feb 24, the goals and legal justification aren't entirely clear. He clearly used Article 51 for the donbas region, but he also had a good bit about Nato threatening them, laying out the history of US/Nato aggression, but he didn't appear to give much of a legal basis on that point. I'm unsure if the threat is considered imminent enough to be considered legally justified. Although, imo, basic principles of taking responsibility for the predictable consequences of one's actions and the principle of universality would make some sort of Russian response morally justified (perhaps not the response they chose, its debatable), but perhaps not legally.

Magpie said...

I must admit Caitlin Johnstone's piece is good. In fact, I think she is being moderate and wasn't emphatic enough.

She is right to highlight that Mason does not deny The Grayzone allegations about plotting to interfere with dissenters and that Mason, a Bellingcat fan, believes Bellingcat is a conduit for western intelligence masquerading as independent investigative journalism ("I make no comment on such materials, which may be altered or faked."). Nobody in better position than Mason himself to deny those allegations if they were false. It's telling that he does not deny them.

She is also right in pointing that Amil Khan never contradicted Mason's belief about Bellingcat. What she should have highlighted is that Khan is supposed to be an expert on the matter: maybe one could dismiss Mason as an amateur talking shit, parroting popular but mistaken beliefs.

I don't think one can dismiss Khan as easily. His silence on that is deafening.

Magpie said...

Of course, if one were to dismiss Mason's as an amateur is to condemn him, but at least one would have attempted to preserve the credibility of Bellingcat. It would have been a sort of damage control.

This episode doesn't look good at all.