Russian Rebellion & the Ukraine War w/Col Macgregor

Bear Klein sent me an email:

This article explains the Russia I believe you do not understand.

Prigozhin’s Mutiny Is the Beginning of Putin’s End

Nobody in Russia understands what the war in Ukraine is about. And now, nobody knows if that war is coming to them.

By Lucian Kim, a global fellow with the Wilson Center in Washington and NPR’s former Moscow bureau chief.

I intended to post the whole article but first I wanted to read or watch a few others. One of the reasons I didn’t like the article was because I noticed many articles from the west that suggested variants of the same thing, namely that this is the beginning of the end to Putin’s reign.. I didn’t see it that way. As always, I found Col Macgregor believable. The meaning of Prigozhin’s short-lived mutiny in Russia.  It’s the best but you won’t like the interviewer and Russian Rebellion & the Ukraine War w/Col Doug Macgregor

June 27, 2023 | 13 Comments »

Leave a Reply

13 Comments / 13 Comments

  1. Yet another “loose end”:

    Top Russian general who knew about mutiny plot now missing amid rumors of ‘interrogation’
    By Lee Brown
    June 28, 2023 10:14am Updated

    The top Russian military leader thought to have had advance knowledge of the weekend’s armed mutiny has reportedly gone missing amid rumors he’s being interrogated for possible “complicity in the rebellion.”

    Gen. Sergei Surovikin, the ruthless one-time leader of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, was last seen telling the Wagner Group mercenaries to stop their uprising in an uncomfortable appeal likened to “a hostage video.”

    “Surovikin has not been seen since Saturday,” when that video was filmed, according to the well-connected Rybar Telegram channel…

  2. Here is an interview with a former KGB agent, who seems to know what he’s talking about:

    He does NOT paint Putin as “more stable, more independent and more wealthy. In fact, he notes that we do not actually know where either Putin or Prigozhin actually ARE; and that the only Russian leader who HAS made a verified post-coup appearance is Shoigu, who seems to still be a player.

  3. Peloni,

    [The West] have only made Putin more stable, more independent, and more wealthy.

    Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

  4. @Michael

    Does this look like a people eager to go to war?

    The Russian people, just like the Russian govt, have never preferred war to negotiated settlement. This is why there was no war in 2014, even as the US overthrew the Ukrainian govt. Instead Russia pursued negotiation. Indeed, Russia began negotiations on the very evening of the US coup, and they continued in one form or another from then til 2022, for the very reason you note, ie that Russia did not want war. Yet, there was no one with whom Russia could find to accept a final settlement, as has been made plain by the statements of Merkel, Holland, Poroshenko and Yaroash. In fact, the US didn’t want peace, not in 2014, not in 2022, and not today. They want regime change in Russia, and in pursuit of this agenda, they have taken the mafia state of Ukraine and used it as a weapon with which to fulfill their hopes of destabilizing Putin. By doing so, Ukraine has become a rump state, dependent upon the largess of other nations for it most basic needs, including even its most basic needs of defense as well as the salaries paid to its civil administration, even as its population is being depopulated due to mass emigration and battlefield attrition. Despite the sacrifice the West is making of Ukraine, it seems at every opportunity, they have only made Putin more stable, more independent, and more wealthy.

  5. Hi, Peloni

    That’s fewer words than the previous post, so you’re improving!

    There’s no “narrative” to deal with here: Putin, his warlords, the man in the street — they’ve all been exposed! The gig is up. Here, look at these Muscovites:

    Does this look like a people eager to go to war? The Apathy Club called for a rally in Red Square, but nobody showed up (humor).

  6. @Michael
    What Bear did, and you are doing now, is to cite a Neocon narrative in place of actually sharing any factual basis for believing the narrative you hope to be true is actually supportable as true. It is this sort of folly which fueled the belief that Oslo would lead to peace and that the Disengagement would result in a new Singapore in the Middle east. Indeed, the choice to trust a political narrative rather than to actually evaluate the facts on the ground is why Oslo led to war and why Gaza became a terror state. Likewise, your delusional hope that Putin will somehow regime-change himself for the West, even as every point of Russian society has demonstrated its strong support for him, defy any rational conclusion to support your preferred narrative. Now, if you actually have a fact or two which supports your conclusion that “Prigozhin’s Mutiny Is the Beginning of Putin’s End”, I for one would be most interested in having you share them – but facts mind you, not political narratives.

  7. Peloni,

    That’s a lot of words from you, to obfuscate the fact that, as Bear clearly pointed out,

    Prigozhin’s Mutiny Is the Beginning of Putin’s End

    The only thing we need to wait for now, is to see how badly Putin’s master Xi screws down on him.

    The zombie looks on Mishustin’s cabinet say it all:

    One line in the excellent link Bear provides, is:

    “For Putin, the Wagner mutiny is a self-inflicted wound, the result of his suicidal war against Ukraine.”

  8. @PELONI
    Your comment/essay is extremely well stated. Well done.
    I particularly liked this sentence:

    What is very clear about this operation, however, would clearly argue that Bear’s article by Kim is drinking the party cool aid rather than honestly analyzing the result of what took place.

  9. As JE Dyer has explained we will likely never know the truth behind Prigoghyn’s motivations, but the fact that he conducted a mutiny which lasted a day, the fact that he publicized his march on the capital rather than keeping it quiet, and the fact that he was allowed to get as far as he did suggests that the serious action taken by him and the small contingent which accompanied him was handled in a way which would argue that what we are seeing are simply the surface actions of a more complicated narrative to which we will never become aware, should someone like Seymour Hircsh not become privy to the details of the matter.

    What is very clear about this operation, however, would clearly argue that Bear’s article by Kim is drinking the party cool aid rather than honestly analyzing the result of what took place. Indeed, as Prigoghyn moved towards Moscow, not a single civil administration in the country defected from Putin, not a single army commander defected from Putin, and not a single army unit joined the popular Prigoghyn in his call to mutiny. Unlike the actions which took place in the US during 2020, with massive street protests, an assault on the White House, riots around the nation, and calls for and actions of insurrection commonplace in the press and the halls of power, Russia reaffirmed, without the slightest deviation, that they supported their president over the popular waiter-turned-mercenary, even in the immediate aftermath of him playing the significant role in seizing Bakhmut. Even Putin’s allies in Belarussia and Chechny both reaffirmed their support, not of Russia, but of its leadership prior to the end of this mutiny-for-a-day. In fact, a fair consideration of the facts would argue that Russia, if anything, demonstrated a popular, dare I say democratic, support of its chosen leader, even as Prigoghyn took to supporting the West while spouting Western propaganda.

    This is not to say that Prigoghyn’s mutiny was without incident, as Russians were in fact murdered by this popular mutineer and the fact that he will face no consequence for having murdered his fellow countrymen will not sit well with all Russians. It is a meaningful fact that the permanence of the damage done by Prigoghyn’s march was significantly increased by the death of these warriors who were themselves only acting in accordance with the duty to which Prigoghyn and his men should have been acting.

    In any event, Kim’s dialogue will certainly appeal to the Neocon-centric supporters of the war in Ukraine such as Bear, but it lacks any rational basis to draw the conclusion it affirms. Indeed, such political analysis in place of an impartial review of the facts is actually why the war in Ukraine began, and why it is still ongoing, and why it is still escalating. Indeed, no matter whether one might support or oppose Ukraine in this war, it can not be denied that Russia has shown not the slightest support of Kim’s conclusion that Putin’s days are numbered, but rather quite the opposite in fact – should we look at what actually took place following Prigoghyn’s march on Moscow rather than what we hope it might mean.

    A better, dare I say more balanced, analysis might be found in the remarks by Big Surge than that of Kim, though, I still agree with Dyer’s analysis that the real motive of this mutiny likely lies buried deeper than the surface facts to which we are currently privy, but the results which followed the mutiny are quite clear and tell a very different story from the Neocon narratives which are currently being shared in the West as a evidence of Putin’s vulnerability.

    I would suggest that when we hide from the truth, it doesn’t change the truth, it simply changes our ability to competently deal with it.