Wagner Chief Attempts ‘Armed Insurrection’ in Russia: Kremlin | antiwar.com

Hawkeye10 said:
Phoenyx said:
For me, there's a really important question here. From the article in the opening post:

**
On Friday, Prigozhin claimed a Russian “missile attack” on a Wagner camp had left “many victims,” sharing footage purporting to depict the aftermath of the strike. While the video appears to show the body of one dead soldier and multiple small fires in a wooded area, it includes little direct evidence of an attack.

In another post, the Wagner head stated: “There are 25,000 of us and we are going to figure out why chaos is happening in the country,” suggesting he would advance on Rostov, a major city in Russia’s southwest. He argued his actions did not amount to a “military coup,” instead describing the move as a “march for justice.”

Prigozhin has led an increasingly public war of words with the Russian government and military, repeatedly accusing officials of declining to supply the ammunition and gear needed to capture the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut (known as Artyomovsk in Russia). The town finally fell in May, after months of brutal fighting.

Russian authorities have rejected Prigozhin’s charges outright, with the Defense Ministry stating they “do not correspond with reality” while deeming his claims an “informational provocation.”
**

Was Prigozhin lying about this missile attack and/or the Russian military declining to supply Wagner with ammunition and gear needed to capture Bakhmut? If the answer is no to either of these questions, does Putin know? It could make a difference in to how Putin views him.

One thing I will say, the fact that Prigozhin had apparently hoped to simply get back to the war front as if the whole insurrection hadn't happened suggests he didn't properly think the consequences of his actions through.
Click to expand...

They call that being unhinged, not well.......... but when you parley that into betraying Russia in time of war to secure its existence, which is what the Russians think they are doing, then I would expect substantial consequences.
Click to expand...

For me, there's a few questions here: Did Prigozhin think he was betraying Russia? And perhaps more importantly, was he?

I fully admit it's possible that he might have been trying to do that. I still remember a video apparently unearthed of him trying to cut some deal with the Ukrainians before leaving Bakhmut. -That- certainly sounded like betrayal. However, to be fair, it happened -after- he accused Russia's military of not supplying him with enough ammunition and gear. Could it be that he felt that his being betrayed merited betraying in return?

Anyway, perhaps we'll learn more about his story soon. I'd also really like to listen to the stories of the people who were under his command as well.

As to consequences, we'll see. One of the reasons that it might be wise for the Russian government to honor its agreement to leave Prigozhin alone if he remains in Belarussian exile is that a lot of people will be watching. If something happens to him that suggests that the Russian government didn't honor its word, it'll tarnish its reputation.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Phoenyx said:
I think you're confusing diplomacy with weakness. It's not a weakness to try to resolve conflicts without violence. He certainly tried hard to resolve the Ukrainian conflict without a military intervention for 8 years. Finally decided that Ukraine and its western backers had to be dealt with militarily, not just diplomatically, but he certainly gave diplomacy a go. Prigozhin certainly came around to a diplomatic solution a lot faster than Ukraine did.
Click to expand...

After he greatly damaged the nation.
Click to expand...

Did he though? As far as I can tell, Prigozhin didn't kill a single Russian. In a way, it reminds me a bit of the Jan 6 "insurrection" that happened in Washington D.C. not so long ago. There a few people did die, but we're talking perhaps a handful. Nothing like what happened during 9/11, to give a far more stark example.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Phoenyx said:
I think you're confusing diplomacy with weakness. It's not a weakness to try to resolve conflicts without violence. He certainly tried hard to resolve the Ukrainian conflict without a military intervention for 8 years. Finally decided that Ukraine and its western backers had to be dealt with militarily, not just diplomatically, but he certainly gave diplomacy a go. Prigozhin certainly came around to a diplomatic solution a lot faster than Ukraine did.
Click to expand...

do you also think that his invasion of Crimea during Obama's presidency was because Crimea was threatening Russia?.....who will be threatening them next?.......Canada?.....
Click to expand...

No, Crimea was definitely -not- threatening Russia. A large majority of Crimeans definitely felt that the new government in Kyiv was though. If you'd like to learn more about Russia's annexation of Crimea, I strongly suggest taking a look at an article from Eva Bartlett, one of the few reporters who actually went over to Crimea after its annexation. It's here:

Return to Russia: Crimeans tell the real story of the 2014 referendum and their lives since | mintpressnews.com
 
floridafan said:
Phoenyx said:
And yet...

Prigozhin Headed for Belarus After Ending ‘Insurrection’ | antiwar.com

The Ukraine and its western backers had a chance to end the Ukraine war early on as well. Unfortunately, Ukraine, encouraged by the UK and quite possibly the U.S., ditched that route:

Could the War in Ukraine Have Been Stopped? | The National Interest
Click to expand...

Neo one knows the details as yet, except of course you!
Click to expand...

What details are you referring to?
 
Phoenyx said:
For me, there's a few questions here: Did Prigozhin think he was betraying Russia? And perhaps more importantly, was he?

I fully admit it's possible that he might have been trying to do that. I still remember a video apparently unearthed of him trying to cut some deal with the Ukrainians before leaving Bakhmut. -That- certainly sounded like betrayal. However, to be fair, it happened -after- he accused Russia's military of not supplying him with enough ammunition and gear. Could it be that he felt that his being betrayed merited betraying in return?

Anyway, perhaps we'll learn more about his story soon. I'd also really like to listen to the stories of the people who were under his command as well.

As to consequences, we'll see. One of the reasons that it might be wise for the Russian government to honor its agreement to leave Prigozhin alone if he remains in Belarussian exile is that a lot of people will be watching. If something happens to him that suggests that the Russian government didn't honor its word, it'll tarnish its reputation.
Click to expand...

Surely Putin will speak on this, the Russian people must be given an explanation for him being allowed to escape justice for his betrayal. This whole thing has been weird, I do wonder if Prigozhin has leverage on Putin, and Putin knows that he is crazy enough to use it.
 
Phoenyx said:
Did he though? As far as I can tell, Prigozhin didn't kill a single Russian. In a way, it reminds me a bit of the Jan 6 "insurrection" that happened in Washington D.C. not so long ago. There a few people did die, but we're talking perhaps a handful. Nothing like what happened during 9/11, to give a far more stark example.
Click to expand...

He gave aid and comfort to the enemy and in the process likely prolonged the conflict. The children in Washington now think that they are closer to their objective, regime change in Russia and weakening Russia so they are more likely to keep at it. Now this means that the West continues to weaken itself but that is not the point.
 
Alexander Mercouris says that Putin is now stronger, Russia is now stronger. Obviously the children in Washington tell a different story.
 
Phoenyx said:
Maybe. One thing, I definitely think that Putin made the right decision in cutting a deal with Prigozhin. It seems all he gave Prigozhin was safe passage to Belarus and an agreement not to prosecute those who followed him in his "march for justice". Not bad, considering how much more messy the situation could have become.
Click to expand...

Putin has shown his weakness
 
Hawkeye10 said:
No....Prigozhin will now be arrested, and Wagner is likely to be disbanded.
Click to expand...

So, as usual, you're wrong. Prigie now has asylum in Belarus because Putin was too weak to punish the Wagner group for their insurrection. trump and putin really put the "dick" in dictator do they not?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I think that the guys on The Duran are wrong.....I think that Putin comes out of this stronger.
Click to expand...

The fact Putin needed a third party, Belarus to mediate Prigozen's truce. It just shows you how weak Putin has become. It won't be long before Putin loses the support of the Russian military. Once that happens - it's all over for poor little Vladdie.
 
guno said:
Interesting

A native of St. Petersburg, like Putin, Prigozhin served time in prison for assault in the 1980s. He later opened a hot dog stand and eventually a catering business before becoming, improbably, one of Putin’s closest advisers.
Click to expand...

He was known a "Putin's chef".
 
I read that Putin wanted to take the Wagner troops and put them under his control. He also was going to use them in parts as Putin's generals saw fit. In short, he was wrecking Wagner. I am sure Prigozin was seeing his money drying up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top