Russia-Wagner Clash

[Spotted Horses]

We don't know, obviously. Prigozhin may have badly overplayed his hand. Putin had expressed extreme dissatisfaction with his military establishment and tolerated Prigozhin, presumably because Prigozhin got results. Prigozhin may have thought Putin would side with him against Russia's ineffective military bureaucracy and appoint him as the new military chief, but instead Putin recognized it as a threat to his own authority. As others have pointed out, Prigozhin has lost everything, and has no friends in Belarus.

[AnotherSpin]

It's probably best to wait a few hours or a few days. At this point, both Putin and Prigozhin look defeated and the occupying army is demoralised. This situation cannot last long. There have been no missile/drone attacks on Ukraine tonight, which is unusual since a long time. I don't think it benefits Putin to remove Prigozhin, for the reasons I wrote earlier.

[AnotherSpin]

Someone in Ukranian social media suggested renaming Prigozhin's army, from Wagner's army to Tchaikovsky's army.

[AnotherSpin]

By the way, in case anyone doesn't know where the name of Prigozhin's army came from. Prigozhin owns the army, but its actual founder was the Russian Nazi Dmitry Utkin, he has the call sign Wagner.

[Todd]

For example, a country that does not attack its neighbours, does not annex others' territories, does not threaten to use nuclear weapons, does not blow up reservoir dams, does not kill civilians... you can add to the list as you wish.

You are describing a lesser power.  Russia is still a great power.  It acts like other great powers - eg, the United States - in engaging in ferocious, large-scale, illegal violence against other nation states. 

[AnotherSpin]

You are describing a lesser power.  Russia is still a great power.  It acts like other great powers - eg, the United States - in engaging in ferocious, large-scale, illegal violence against other nation states.

Russia is huge, but pretty weak. Putin's confusion yesterday and his willingness to flee the capital in the face of a relatively small army of thugs demonstrates this more than amply. And, I think I can tell the difference between a criminal and someone who aids a victim of violence and restores order, even if the former and the latter use weapons. Can you?

[Todd]

Russia is huge, but pretty weak.

This is wishful thinking.  Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks, as the old saying goes.  Plus, Russia has a large stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons. That combined with what the Pentagon still describes as the second most capable conventional military in the world - in contrast to some online commentators - means that it remains a great power by every commonly used measure.  I understand that the interwebs have many more definitions.

And, I think I can tell the difference between a criminal and someone who aids a victim of violence and restores order, even if the former and the latter use weapons. Can you?

Very easily, which is why I know that, exactly like Russia, the US is a great power that uses ferocious, large-scale, illegal violence against other nation states, such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the regional use of UAVs to murder thousands of people in multiple countries for decades.  US actions do not restore order or anything like it.  Indeed, in some cases, regional destabilization is the policy goal.  (I limited US policies under consideration to this century only.)  I suppose one can pretend the US policy in Ukraine has something to do with restoring order, defending democracy, etc. 

[Florestan]

Here we go again. This thread is rapidly approaching closure.

[AnotherSpin]

This is wishful thinking.  Russia is never as strong as she looks; Russia is never as weak as she looks, as the old saying goes.  Plus, Russia has a large stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons. That combined with what the Pentagon still describes as the second most capable conventional military in the world - in contrast to some online commentators - means that it remains a great power by every commonly used measure.  I understand that the interwebs have many more definitions.

Very easily, which is why I know that, exactly like Russia, the US is a great power that uses ferocious, large-scale, illegal violence against other nation states, such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the regional use of UAVs to murder thousands of people in multiple countries for decades.  US actions do not restore order or anything like it.  Indeed, in some cases, regional destabilization is the policy goal.  (I limited US policies under consideration to this century only.)  I suppose one can pretend the US policy in Ukraine has something to do with restoring order, defending democracy, etc.

Really? Can you tell me the last time a great power escaped from an army of thugs who were ready to storm the capital? Can you imagine such scenario in any "strong" country at all? And, can you tell me which part of Iraq or Syria or whatever else you pointed out was annexed by the United States?

And, the policies of the US and other Western countries such as the UK and others have at least to date protected Ukrainian cities from barbaric bombardment by the Russians. Almost all Russian missiles are shot down and the casualty count in the cities has been kept to a minimum. What will the left-wing radicals say? Or would they rather remain silent?

[DavidW]

The thread will remain locked, but please find the discussion here.  This should hopefully be better and more transparent than simply deleting the posts.