VILNIUS, June 26. /TASS/. Lithuania will not make concessions on the issue of transit of sanctioned goods to Russia’s enclave Kaliningrad region, President Gitanas Nauseda blogged on his Facebook page (banned in Russia; owned by Meta Corporation, which is designated as extremist in Russia).
“It is perfectly clear that Lithuania must and will apply the EU sanctions. Lithuania must and will maintain control over the goods transported via its territory, and any ‘corridors’ are out of the question, just as concessions to Russia are out of the question,” the president said.
“The government should immediately begin consultations with the European Commission so that the imposed sanctions don’t harm either the interests of Lithuania or international agreements,” he noted.
Earlier, Kaliningrad Region Governor Anton Alikhanov said that on June 18, Lithuania’s national railroad operator notified Kaliningrad of restrictions on the transit of goods between the region and mainland Russia. On June 21, news came that the restrictions affected road traffic as well.
The Kremlin branded the move as an economic blockade, while Lithuania and the EU insist the restrictions are only aimed at implementing the sanctions regime in place against Russia.
A common thread in postwar histories of WW2 was one that liked to paint Adolf Hitler as increasingly unhinged and detached from reality towards the end of the Third Reich. We were told stories of how he liked to indulge himself in flights of fancy, surveying architectural models of a new Berlin, one that was to be built after Germany won the war, despite the Allies already closing in on both sides. Delusions of future grandeur, while everything was collapsing all around him. A case of “cope”?
The feel of omnipotence after a string of great successes can often lead one to think of themselves as permanent victors, incapable of defeat. This enters the realm of delusion when the facts on the ground run counter to the perception of victory. This is the real estate currently occupied by a large segment of the US foreign policy community.
Yesterday, I was alerted to this “online briefing” that is taking place tomorrow:
Yes, you read that right: a discussion on the “need” to partition Russia for “moral and strategic” reasons.
Who is the Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe, you ask?
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, is an independent commission of the U.S. Federal Government. For over 45 years, the Commission has monitored “compliance with the Helsinki Accords and advanced comprehensive security through promotion of human rights, democracy, and economic, environmental, and military cooperation in the 57-nation OSCE region.”
In short: it’s another of the zillions of committees run and financed by the US Government. The US Government held a panel earlier today on the “need” to partition Russia. Let that sink in for a bit.
This panel is being led by four women and one man, all of whom have cycled through the NGO Regime Change Complex, whether it be the International Crisis Group, Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, the German Marshall Fund, the Soros Octopus, and so on. There are too many groups in total that they have collectively worked for to list, so we won’t do that. Instead, here are their names and bios:
Fatima Tlis(ova) – Fellow at National Endowment for Democracy (regime change central)
Botakoz Kassymbekova – Oxus Society, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute of History and Social Sciences at the John Moores Liverpool University
Erica Marat – National Defense University (USA)
Hanna Hopko – Chair, Democracy in Action Conference
Casey Michel – Hudson Institute
These are your typical “swamp creatures” who profit off of the misery of those targeted by the USA for regime change. Their views always match up with the policies of the US State Department, regardless of how they couch their words. Pure coincidence, of course.
The Shift in Terms
What is notable about this panel is the shift from “spreading freedom and democracy” to the need to “decolonize” Russia.
Exporting democracy was one of the main concepts used to justify US expansionism and interventionism after 9/11. It was a product of the neo-conservatives who had their hands on the steering wheel of US foreign policy under George W. Bush. The failures of the USA in spreading democracy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc., tainted these neo-conservatives, resulting in reputational harm. But because accountability for failure has been for some time now in the USA a foreign concept, these neo-conservatives took time out to lick their wounds and then rehabilitate their image by latching themselves onto the opposition to Trump, branding themselves as “defenders of democracy”, be it at home or abroad. They managed to successfully weasel their way back into the corridors of power.
These neo-conservatives have managed to once again grasp the steering wheel of policy, and in tandem with liberal interventionists are happily driving the West into open conflict with Russia by escalating their support for Ukraine and by trying to bait Russia into an overreaction, such as pushing Lithuania to to stop the passage of goods from Russia Proper into the Kaliningrad Oblast. Their matron is Vicki “Fuck the EU” Nuland, the woman in charge of Russia policy who has effortlessly glided through White House Administrations whether they be D or R.
At the beginning of this war, the stated US objective was to degrade Russian forces as much as possible in the theatre of conflict. High on their own propaganda supply after the first few weeks of the war, the tone shifted to regime change in Moscow (the most sought-after goal in the US State Department). After all, Russia needs democracy, and Russians need to be freed of Dictator Putin so that they can enjoy its fruits like the rest of the Free World aka countries that the USA likes.
Tomorrow’s panel is a further step forward in that it tells ordinary Russians that even regime change and democracy is not good enough for them. They require the partition of their country into smaller (more easily controlled) polities, so that they can be free. Needless to say, this is a propaganda coup for Putin and the Kremlin as it allows them to paint the conflict in Ukraine as an existential fight.
I am fond of saying that the genius of the United States of America is its ability to absorb, co-opt, and then monetize any trend that comes its way. “Decolonizing Russia” is simply woke terminology for its partition. This symbolizes how the USA has managed to co-opt “Wokeness” for its own foreign policy objectives.
“Russia’s barbaric war on Ukraine—and before that on Syria, Libya, Georgia, and Chechnya—has exposed the Russian Federation’s viciously imperial character to the entire world. Its aggression also is catalyzing a long-overdue conversation about Russia’s interior empire, given Moscow’s dominion over many indigenous non-Russian nations, and the brutal extent to which the Kremlin has taken to suppress their national self-expression and self-determination.”
Please note the bolded portions. Yes, it is hilarious that these fucking assholes have the temerity to ignore what the USA did to Syria and Libya and instead blame it on the Russians. It is also hilarious that they attack Russia for extinguishing an al-Qaida-led insurgency in Chechnya. However, this takes us away from the main point: the use of woke terminology in the service of US Empire.
I have been predicting this to happen for well over a decade, and other people have noticed this:
In fact, I wrote two pieces about this:
The Desquamation of America – the USA shifting from a mercantilist empire to an ideological one that incorporates wokeness
Turbo-America – the USA going for gold i.e. global hegemony in a world where multipolarism is taking shape
I am certain that many of you will take the position that I formerly had; that the adoption of woke terminology in service of empire is a cynical ploy. I no longer believe that. I think that these are true believers. Chechens, Volga Tatars, the Komi, the Yakuts, all “indigenous” peoples suffering under Russian colonization, all yearning to be free, all seeking to release the American that is inside of them, screaming to get out. They are US Blacks who still suffer from the legacy of slavery and segregation, they are the Sioux on the reserve, they are the bullied Transgendered, they are the oppressed WaPo journalist from a rich family who went to Swiss boarding school.
My readers know full well that western reporting on the war in Ukraine was so propagandistic as to render it useless, until very recently. The actual situation on the ground simply became too obvious to continue the push to claim that the Ukrainians were on the verge of victory over Russia. This is what makes a USGov panel on partitioning Russia delusional. Who exactly is this for, other than to convince themselves and to justify their own employment?
In my recent piece “Hubris”, I explained just how dangerous a course has been set by the USA in choosing to take on Russia AND China at the same time, pushing these two states together in an existential alliance.
In “Incompetence”, we took a look at how the sanctions regime against Russia has boomeranged against the USA and EU (and is damaging other places such as Africa), without snuffing out the Russian economy, the actual objective of these sanctions.
We can now safely add delusion to hubris and incompetence when describing US foreign policy today. If you think that this is bad enough, US officials are reportedly happy to plunge the world into a global recession and mounting hunger (starvation) to ensure that Russia doesn’t win in Ukraine:
Europeans and North Americans need to sacrifice their standard of living so that the USA can triumph in Ukraine. Africans might need to starve as well. It’s for a good cause, the decolonization of Russia. How can you say no?
I recommend clicking on the link and reading the whole piece. It is long at 25 pages, but is a comprehensive (and thought-provoking) discussion of the legal and political aspects of the Ukraine conflict since the events of 2013. – Natylie
David C. Hendrickson is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, Professor Emeritus of political science at Colorado College, and President of the John Quincy Adams Society.
The way in which commentators have looked upon the legal issues raised by Russia’s war in Ukraine is inadequate. Western leaders have focused exclusively on Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, both in 2014 and 2022. By territorial integrity is meant the principle that every state has a right to preserve itself in its own borders against external aggression. Undoubtedly, that is an important principle of international law. It is what makes the invasion or occupation of another state’s territory a categorically unjust act. This principle alone does not fully penetrate the legal issues, however, because its standing has to be assessed alongside other important principles in international law, especially the right of revolution and the right of national self-determination.
By choosing to view the Ukraine crisis solely through the lens of territorial integrity, Western policymakers systematically overlook one critical aspect of sovereignty. The principle of territorial integrity is only the external dimension of sovereignty—the more holistic concept. It is the application of international law to the external boundaries of states. But sovereignty also has an internal dimension: the right of a people to choose the sovereign whose authority they will abide by.
On the night of February 24, when Russian forces crossed the western and northern borders of Ukraine, the world’s attention was riveted on the fate of Kiev. Hardly anyone paid attention to the far south in the Black Sea, some 140 kms from Odessa, when Russian Navy attacked that night and captured the entire Ukrainian garrison on Snake Island, an obscure small clump of rock with little obvious value, just 46 acres of rock and grass.
But yet another massive attempt by Ukrainian forces on June 20 early morning to land troops on Snake Island signals that the Russian occupation remains under stiff challenge still. The Russians say they spotted a Global Hawk RQ-4 strategic reconnaissance UAV of the US Air Force at high altitudes near Snake Island, apparently feeding coordinates to the Ukrainian combat positions.
The MOD in Moscow issued a lengthy account (in English) on Snake Island during the daily briefing on Tuesday by Lt. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, the chief spokesman. The statement said:
“On June 20, at about 05.00 AM, the Kiev regime attempted to capture Snake Island.”
“The plan of the operation composed by the Kiev regime was supposed to launch massive air and artillery attacks at Snake Island, to disembark troops and capture it.”
“The air attack involved more than 15 Ukrainian attack and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) adjusted by two Bayraktar-TB2 UAVs.”
“Russian means detected a Global Hawk RQ-4 strategic reconnaissance UAV of the U.S. Air Force at high altitudes near Snake Island.”
“Ukrainian UAVs were supported in air by S-300 air defense systems from their combat positions near Tuzla and Ochakov (in Odessa Region).”
“Missile and artillery attacks at Snake Island were launched by Ukrainian Tochka-U ballistic missiles, Uragan multiple rocket launchers and M777 155-mm howitzers from their combat positions to the west from Odessa and in Kubansky island.”
“Russian air defence means (Pantsir air defense missile and cannon system and Tor air defense missile system) have destroyed all the destruction means of the enemy launched at Snake Island.”
“The destroyed targets were: 13 UAVs, 4 Tochka-U missiles and 21 projectiles of Uragan multiple rocket launcher.”
“No Ukrainian destruction means have reached their targets in Snake Island.”
“The unsuccessful fire attack forced the enemy to abandon the landing to Snake Island.”
Control over Snake Island is of strategic importance. Located near the southern coast of Odessa, it is a necessary springboard for the expected Russian operation on that port city in a conceivable future. By the same token, the removal of the Russian control of Snake Island becomes important for Kiev.
If the Ukrainian military regains control of the island, it can not only ensure the safety of the air and sea near Odessa, but can also be used for the supply of military equipment by NATO by sea. Although the Snake Island is only a fraction of a square kilometre in size, its importance for control of the sea lanes in western Black Sea is not in doubt.
If Russians set up their long-range air-defence systems they will control the sea, land and air in the north-west part of the Black Sea and in the south of Ukraine. It would also give Russian troops the chance to break into Transnistria, Moldova’s breakaway territory under Russian control that lies next-door to Ukraine and not far from Odesa. The US is working feverishly to do “another Ukraine” against Russia in Moldavia which has a president and top officials with dual American citizenship who seek EU and NATO membership.
Snake Island is only 45km away from the coast of Romania, which is a member of NATO, where the alliance has deployed an estimated land force of upto 4,000 troops currently drawn from the US, Germany, France, UK, Poland, etc. Snake Island lies close to the mouth of the River Danube, which delineates Romania’s border with Ukraine. Military analysts have pointed out that Russian troops on Snake Island could be in a position to control traffic into the Danube delta, the gateway to south-eastern Europe. Romania’s Black Sea port of Constanta is not far south.
Clearly, the involvement of the US and UK in the planning and conduct of Ukraine’s repeated attempts to regain control of the Snake Island shows that they have given the Snake Island a vital and almost mythical status in the war. Any Russian deployment of S-400 missile system in Snake Island would of course endanger NATO’s southern flank.
Suffice to say, the NATO’s permanent presence in the Black Sea and future expansion toward the Caucasus and the Caspian and Central Asian regions will remain problematic so long as Russia is in control of Snake island.
Snake Island epitomises the hopelessness of the Ukraine war. Russia cannot end its operation even after a successful completion of the Battle of Donbass. Kiev is unlikely to sue for peace. Kiev is seriously preparing for a counteroffensive once the heavy weapons arriving from the US are deployed.
Kharkiv is only 40 kms from the Russian border and Ukrainian forces are in no mood to give up there. In the south, Kiev vows to retake Zoporozhizhia, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions which the Russians plan to integrate. The Ukrainian forces are well ensconced in Odessa. Clearly, the NATO is preparing for a big fight for Odessa. The ongoing battle for Snake Island is symptomatic of that.
The two US weapon systems that could be game-changers in an island fight are Harpoon anti-ship missiles and High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). While Harpoons could help the Ukrainians cut off the Snake Island from seaborne resupply, HIMARS could allow them to bombard the island at will.
The Black Sea Fleet remains in control of the Black Sea and Russians apparently managed to ship a Tor air-defence system to Snake Island. But that may change once the US supply of truck-mounted launchers for Harpoon anti-ship missiles reach Ukraine. The Harpoon has a range of 150 kms or more. HIMARS can fire M30 rockets out to a distance of over 70 kms —more than enough to reach Snake Island.
To be sure, a long war lies ahead and it cannot really end without the collapse of the Ukrainian state and abject surrender. Most certainly, Ukrainians will renew their assault on Snake Island. It is evident that unlike eastern region, southern Ukraine is the priority in NATO’s planning.
