Watson’s denial of an intent to kill Russian generals—so far 12 have been smoked—sounds like she wants you to believe the dead are what? Accidental? Accessory? Just bad luck? Of course, the United States provides intelligence to kill the best Russian officers. Aren’t you supposed to cut off the poisonous snake’s head when it crawls into your sleeping bag, whether you’re on a family hiking vacation or fighting a major ground war against a brutal adversary? Aren’t combat snipers tasked with scouring the landscape for officers to shoot as they nest to kill? The Biden administration has already sent at least $3 billion in military aid to Ukraine so far and plans to send many more. If this money is not supposed to eliminate Russian generals and their command structure to hasten the end of the war, why bother?
On Thursday afternoon, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby tried unsuccessfully to clear Watson’s mess during his daily briefing. “We do not provide intelligence on the location of senior military officials on the battlefield or participate in the targeting decisions of the Ukrainian military,” he said. mentioned. Kirby may be a straight shooter, but here he seemed to be challenging something the Time did not write. The key words of Time the story is about US intelligence lending “targeting assistance” and information about “mobile headquarters”, not the US giving the Ukrainians the GPS coordinates of their strikes.
Of course, the Biden administration got nervous about the Time story because it expressed the obvious. The White House fears that bragging about killing Russian generals will expand the war, because the Time history reports. That’s one way to read it. Another would be that lax Russian security and recklessness on the battlefield also help Ukrainians kill Russian generals.
The printed title of the Time article, “US Helped kyiv Target Russian Generals” softened the fuss by replacing “Killing” in the original web title with “Targeting.” But who was fooled? The story sounded to some ears as if the United States were assassinating Russian generals, and global assassination has an ugly Kennedy-era taint that our government now avoids. Speaking to CNN on Thursday morning on the subject, Phil Mudd, a counterterrorism analyst for the network and a former FBI senior intelligence adviser, said so. “Generally you don’t use intelligence for assassination operations,” Mudd said. “I agree with the White House. I thought the title was misleading. But Mudd was not much more convincing in his description of the murder than Watson. In his version, the United States provides information and the disposition forces and command posts, and give them to the Ukrainians who “can combine that with other intelligence and say we’re going to go after that building because we think high-value targets are there.” In Mudd’s estimation, it had nothing to do with an assassination. You are the judge.
Mudd, whose work I generally admire, only compounds Watson’s error. If I help you determine where your enemy has camped, and I know you know how to get there, and I know you desperately want him dead and you have the means to kill, am I not complicit? Isn’t it obvious to the Russians, regardless of Watson’s denials of intent and Mudd’s qualifications, that the United States is a full partner in the killing of Russian generals? Maybe the obfuscations give the US diplomatic cover, but I doubt it. Even if the Time hadn’t run its story, it’s child’s play that the Russians would happily vaporize any American forces that might enter the theater.
If the Biden administration has a beef with the Time for his story, it’s whipping the wrong offender. The reason why the Time knows that the US is helping Ukrainians “target” or “kill” Russian generals is that US “senior US officials” told them so, according to the story. It’s been an open secret ever since. two weeks before the invasion that American spy satellites and other intelligence assets penetrated Russian security, giving the United States an open window into Russian plans, and that the United States shared intelligence widely because it want the Russians to know that we know almost everything they do. the Time The story, while accurate and thorough, only confirms the true verdict on US capabilities and intentions that was handed down months ago.
Adrenne Watson’s disclaimer will not convince readers that the United States is not deliberately hastening the deaths of Russian generals. This will not convince the Russians either. This will only reinforce the common knowledge that official government statements are frequently framed to dupe you.
Send satellite intelligence on my enemies to [email protected]. My email alerts are AWOL. You cannot register. If you do, your subscription will be deleted. My Twitter feed is open to everyone. Assassination is my RSS food activity.