Moscow Claims UK Involvement In Sevastopol Drone Attack. So What?
It is further evidence of the Kremlin’s increasing detachment from reality that diplomat Andrei Kelin accused UK special forces of being involved in the recent drone strike on the Russian Black Sea Fleet while at anchor in Sevastopol.
In an interview with Sky's Mark Austin, diplomat Andrei Kelin claimed he had proof that UK special forces were involved in a Ukrainian drone attack on Russia's Black Sea fleet in Crimea and had handed evidence to the British ambassador.
Asked to provide evidence of Russia's claims, Mr Kelin said: "We perfectly know about [the] participation of British specialists in [the] training, preparation and execution of violence against the Russian infrastructure and the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. We know that it has been done."
Given Russia’s original characterization of the attack on Sevastopol as a terrorist act, Moscow’s rhetoric regarding Ukrainian offensives launched against Russian targets seems increasingly petulant and perhaps even whiny. Even the UN Black Sea Grain Initiative does not offer any assurances of safety for the Black Sea Fleet, which makes it a legitimate military target.
As Russia has also boasted of deliberately striking Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, the presupposition that Ukraine is doing something dastardly by striking targets of obvious military value (e.g., the Black Sea Fleet, the Kerch Bridge) is both ludicrous and silly.
Which also makes any involvement of UK special forces largely irrelevant. Ukraine is receiving all manner of aid from the NATO countries, and Putin has not dared consider that aid an outright act of war by NATO (although he has certainly tried to portray it that way). Unless Moscow has proof that UK troops actually launched the drones, any UK involvement is both an open secret and demonstrably not any form of escalation of the war itself.
Putin is mad that Ukraine has friends. Perhaps he should have considered the realities of friendship before deciding to invade on the thinnest of pretexts.
Of course Ukraine has "friends". It was the money laundering capital for much of the western world.
Biden to Ukraine in 2016: "Fire the prosecutor or you don' t get the billion dollars!"
Ukraine to Biden in 2022: "New deal: Give us $50 billion or the prosecutor talks!"
;)
I don't follow the argument here: Putin cannot complain about UK involvement in a drone attack because UK's involvement is an open secret. Also, Putin can't complain because he invaded on a thin pretext.
Putin can be the worst person in the universe. The US military industrial complex is heavily engaged in Ukraine, with boots on the ground and running the technology that is killing people. Lots of money is being spent. We don't have to pick sides here. We pretend Ukrainians are the only ones killing Russians, and that is highly doubtful. The "shadow wars" have been around since Mig Alley in Korea. They're dangerous. If the argument is that this must be done because Putin invaded on the thinnest of pretexts, then let's read that argument. I haven't read anything close to a cogent argument to that effect.
Sometimes it's the material facts that matter, not all facts.