Main Edition
US
FR
June 27, 2023 - 7:00am
Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed Russia for the second time in the past three days late on the evening of 26th June, his hand uncomfortably forced to respond to the historic events of the weekend.
Regular national broadcasts were at the core of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s successful response to a coup against him in 2016, but the substance of Putin’s approach remains a stark contrast in leadership. The Russian President’s latest speech came as the shooting has stopped, but there was still no direct naming of Prigozhin and he offered only an insinuation that outside forces were in part to blame.
Something is clearly wrong. The Kremlin’s propaganda machine appears not be to working, even at the highest level. Renowned for its ability to conjure up “evidence” to support the regime’s line rapidly, even if sometimes in a slapdash way, there is as of yet no narrative being formed about a new external foe. For Putin to acknowledge that an internal enemy has arisen is without precedent since he raised the drawbridges in the aftermath of his first invasion of Ukraine. It was far easier for him to jail dissidents or hound the opposition into exile, and otherwise pretend they didn’t exist — activist Alexei Navalny’s name went almost entirely unmentioned by Kremlin functionaries even after his 2020 Novichok poisoning, return from medical treatment in Germany and subsequent jailing, and never by Putin himself.
But Putin has acknowledged an internal enemy, even if he claims it is now defeated, by labelling Prigozhin’s rebellion one that aimed “for our society to be split, cloaked in bloody strife”. He did at least claim that Prigozhin’s actions failed because society “steadfastly rejected their actions” and yet state television had broadcast images of locals in Rostov celebrating with the Wagner chief 48 hours earlier. Putin clearly did not enjoy having to make the address. And while the President does often prevaricate and bide his time following key events, his response here was baffling.
He reiterated his decision to provide amnesty for the fighters involved or to allow them to go into exile in Belarus. The only reasonable explanation here is that Belarus has not truly been sovereign since Putin used it to stage direct attacks at the beginning of the full-scale invasion last February. Putin could theoretically keep Prigozhin confined there, “disappear” him, or eliminate him without issue. But the Wagner chief himself declared just hours earlier that his organisation would continue to exist, breaking his own silence before Putin did his.
The Russian leader has acknowledged a threat, but not offered a credible plan to deal with it. He looks weak, and yet he will only look weaker if he reverses course after doubling down on his apparently newfound ability to forgive.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOvernight, Vagner’s march has changed every Russian’s world.
They now know they’ve booked passage on the Titanic–and see that there are no lifeboats.
With Vagner’s march on Moscow revealed, Russians are no longer just passive witnesses of the war. From now on the war will affect them directly, and in very unpleasant ways.
They also remember that the Revolution was far bloodier in Moscow than in St P, and that it was a most unhealthy place to live during Stalin’s term.
So get set for the exodus. Houses in the elite district of Rublyovka will soon be going for a song.
Overnight, Vagner’s march has changed every Russian’s world.
They now know they’ve booked passage on the Titanic–and see that there are no lifeboats.
With Vagner’s march on Moscow revealed, Russians are no longer just passive witnesses of the war. From now on the war will affect them directly, and in very unpleasant ways.
They also remember that the Revolution was far bloodier in Moscow than in St P, and that it was a most unhealthy place to live during Stalin’s term.
So get set for the exodus. Houses in the elite district of Rublyovka will soon be going for a song.
The best result of all this is that Russia’s best general, Surovikin, is fatally wounded by Vagner’s march.
He was the one high ranking officer closest to Prigozhin, but now Putin will never trust him with high command again. Loyalty trumps competence every time in Putin’s world.
So Shoigu and Gerasimov will remain in office until they die, overseen by the most incompetent officeholder of them all, Putin himself.
They’re popping champagne corks in Kyiv just now.
Not sure that Putin is actually incompetent. Seems more the case that he’s extremely competent at perhaps 25% of his job and not very good at the rest. In that respect (I intend no other comparison), not dissimilar to Trump. Or perhaps Boris Johnson.
One of my favourite quotes comes to mind here: “first rate people hire first rate people and second rate people hire third rate people [and third rate people hire morons].”
Putin hired Shoigu.
Ukraine really should have a special MVP medal for people like Shoigu.
He’s not incompetent.
But he’s now playing an entirely different game than the one he played even a few days ago.
Now, every “loyal” Silovik in classy Rublyovka suddenly realizes:
1) That war can come to the capital, and thus to them;
2) That any part of the military can do the same thing, and with better planning, succeed;
3) That any one of their fellows may be planning to do just that;
And finally;
4) That they had better start planning for a Post-Putin future, i.e. how they can survive–and make sure their enemies don’t.
Wonder if we’ll see a movie called “The Death of Putin” in a few years…
He’s not incompetent.
But he’s now playing an entirely different game than the one he played even a few days ago.
Now, every “loyal” Silovik in classy Rublyovka suddenly realizes:
1) That war can come to the capital, and thus to them;
2) That any part of the military can do the same thing, and with better planning, succeed;
3) That any one of their fellows may be planning to do just that;
And finally;
4) That they had better start planning for a Post-Putin future, i.e. how they can survive–and make sure their enemies don’t.
Wonder if we’ll see a movie called “The Death of Putin” in a few years…
That’s a bad take. Putin handled this with finesse. Putin managed to diffuse a very serious situation with minimal loss of life. This has only strengthened Putin and the Russian nation.
And the fact that it actually *happened* in the first place still doesn’t tell you anything ?
It’s like something from the Middle Ages.
Take a peek at “Boris Godunov.”
A great opera, and one that fully explains any Russian ‘rulers’ dilemma.
Take a peek at “Boris Godunov.”
A great opera, and one that fully explains any Russian ‘rulers’ dilemma.
It is telling that you state he has diffused the situation, but suggest that has strengthened him.
Now, had he defused it, you might have a point.
Prigozhin has been exiled, no members of the Russian government sided with Prigozhin — now everyone knows that the Russian state has been pressure tested and remains solid — this will only give interested parties more faith in the Russian government — confidence is contagious – the Russian people are united as one — all of the bad people such as Natasha have left — good riddance!
Prigozhin has been exiled, no members of the Russian government sided with Prigozhin — now everyone knows that the Russian state has been pressure tested and remains solid — this will only give interested parties more faith in the Russian government — confidence is contagious – the Russian people are united as one — all of the bad people such as Natasha have left — good riddance!
And the fact that it actually *happened* in the first place still doesn’t tell you anything ?
It’s like something from the Middle Ages.
It is telling that you state he has diffused the situation, but suggest that has strengthened him.
Now, had he defused it, you might have a point.
Not sure that Putin is actually incompetent. Seems more the case that he’s extremely competent at perhaps 25% of his job and not very good at the rest. In that respect (I intend no other comparison), not dissimilar to Trump. Or perhaps Boris Johnson.
One of my favourite quotes comes to mind here: “first rate people hire first rate people and second rate people hire third rate people [and third rate people hire morons].”
Putin hired Shoigu.
Ukraine really should have a special MVP medal for people like Shoigu.
That’s a bad take. Putin handled this with finesse. Putin managed to diffuse a very serious situation with minimal loss of life. This has only strengthened Putin and the Russian nation.
The best result of all this is that Russia’s best general, Surovikin, is fatally wounded by Vagner’s march.
He was the one high ranking officer closest to Prigozhin, but now Putin will never trust him with high command again. Loyalty trumps competence every time in Putin’s world.
So Shoigu and Gerasimov will remain in office until they die, overseen by the most incompetent officeholder of them all, Putin himself.
They’re popping champagne corks in Kyiv just now.
Acknowledging that there is an internal enemy (within Russia) is not at all a sign of weakness, it’s a simple propaganda tool. Remember Stalin and the kulaks? MacCarthyism?
Or more recently , think Biden finger-pointing MAGA or Trump the Deep State.
Putin is not weaker now, he’s stronger than ever and he’s got a few potential “internal scapegoats” lined up that he could use just in case.
Every Silovik is wondering what will happen next–and what will happen after Putin.
Every Silovik is wondering what will happen next–and what will happen after Putin.
Acknowledging that there is an internal enemy (within Russia) is not at all a sign of weakness, it’s a simple propaganda tool. Remember Stalin and the kulaks? MacCarthyism?
Or more recently , think Biden finger-pointing MAGA or Trump the Deep State.
Putin is not weaker now, he’s stronger than ever and he’s got a few potential “internal scapegoats” lined up that he could use just in case.
Every rich Russian now knows their whole world can collapse overnight, just as it did in 1917.
Most will manage to get out when the Big Rats start devouring one another. But the bulk of the140 million will just have to suffer through it, feigning support for any group that temporarily holds power.
Sudan and Russia are very different–except in their political dysfunction.
Every rich Russian now knows their whole world can collapse overnight, just as it did in 1917.
Most will manage to get out when the Big Rats start devouring one another. But the bulk of the140 million will just have to suffer through it, feigning support for any group that temporarily holds power.
Sudan and Russia are very different–except in their political dysfunction.
Another article that’s seems to be let down by a lack of editorial oversight or polish. I appreciate the authors first language is probably not English, and can therefore be allowed some leeway, but that doesn’t really excuse the publishers from not paying attention.
Would you care to back your point up with some facts ? I’m sure I’m not the only reader struggling to understand what your actual criticism is here.
The English used seems excellent to me. And actually better than yours if I might say so.
I make absolutely NO claims on my English, but then I don’t write, or publish articles for a living, for others to read. Absolutely, it is a limitation on my part, which I fully acknowledge, but that is not to say I don’t appreciate good English in others who are better educated and make it their profession. I’m sorry but I don’t care to reread the article, it may well have been edited since I’ve read it, but if a bumpkin like me can spot errors, perfectly reasonable errors I might add, for someone writing in a foreign language, then an editor, who I assume has, at the very least a degree, should also be able to spot, and adjust them (as has maybe happened, possibly even because of my comment).
Anyway, nuff said, you’re right, my written English isn’t good, I will try to bite my tongue and not expect better from my superiors (just about everybody) in future.
I don’t think anyone is trying to silence you based upon your written English abilities. The point you seem to have missed is that criticisms require evidence in order to carry any weight; otherwise they are liable to come across as ramblings.
The author’s english was in general perfectly good and acceptable. The only fault I could identify was starting sentences with But or And, which was a definite No in my english classes in the 60’s, although it’s quite common nowadays. I tend to do the same, even missing out pronouns sometimes, not like the younger pronoun-obsessed generations.
Actually, I was more concerned about where you thought the errors were.
You seem reluctant to give concrete examples.
Have another go.
I don’t think anyone is trying to silence you based upon your written English abilities. The point you seem to have missed is that criticisms require evidence in order to carry any weight; otherwise they are liable to come across as ramblings.
The author’s english was in general perfectly good and acceptable. The only fault I could identify was starting sentences with But or And, which was a definite No in my english classes in the 60’s, although it’s quite common nowadays. I tend to do the same, even missing out pronouns sometimes, not like the younger pronoun-obsessed generations.
Actually, I was more concerned about where you thought the errors were.
You seem reluctant to give concrete examples.
Have another go.
I make absolutely NO claims on my English, but then I don’t write, or publish articles for a living, for others to read. Absolutely, it is a limitation on my part, which I fully acknowledge, but that is not to say I don’t appreciate good English in others who are better educated and make it their profession. I’m sorry but I don’t care to reread the article, it may well have been edited since I’ve read it, but if a bumpkin like me can spot errors, perfectly reasonable errors I might add, for someone writing in a foreign language, then an editor, who I assume has, at the very least a degree, should also be able to spot, and adjust them (as has maybe happened, possibly even because of my comment).
Anyway, nuff said, you’re right, my written English isn’t good, I will try to bite my tongue and not expect better from my superiors (just about everybody) in future.
Would you care to back your point up with some facts ? I’m sure I’m not the only reader struggling to understand what your actual criticism is here.
The English used seems excellent to me. And actually better than yours if I might say so.
Another article that’s seems to be let down by a lack of editorial oversight or polish. I appreciate the authors first language is probably not English, and can therefore be allowed some leeway, but that doesn’t really excuse the publishers from not paying attention.
The same problems (misfunction, dysfunction, inimical internal dissidents) are shared by many national Governments. The USA has had all of these problems for years. However unlike in Russia, US dissidents are rarely given amnesty.
I hope Putin sees this bro.
The difference being that many national governments are voted out if the public can see they’re taking the wrong direction, something that doesn’t happen in autocracies such as Russia. Granted the opposition aren’t usually much better, but at least having to fight for their jobs every few years means democratic governments have to change course occasionally. Putin facing no danger and surrounded by yes men simply carries on down whichever path he decides whether it’s right or wrong
Exactly. Western systems have built-in feedback mechanisms and leaders and governments need to pay attention to what voters say and think. Countries like Russia have explicitly designed these out so that gradual change is almost impossible and change when it comes is sudden and catastrophic.
Will K is missing the point.
Besides which, Western countries don’t have “dissidents”. They only exist in autocracies.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19745/federal-disinformation-bureaus
So what ?
Dissidents are people in countries where it’s actually unsafe to speak the truth. Perhaps familiarise yourself with the US First Amendment (a shame we don’t have it in the UK).
So what ?
Dissidents are people in countries where it’s actually unsafe to speak the truth. Perhaps familiarise yourself with the US First Amendment (a shame we don’t have it in the UK).
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19745/federal-disinformation-bureaus
Only we have things like Hunter Biden’s laptop, lying FBI, lying CIA, lying AG, lying mainstream media, and Soros funded groups doing ballot stuffing. Also, there are those Dominion voting machines that experts say are hackable.
All that and you didn’t mention the greatest liar of them all. Looks like you might be in thrall to him.
But looks like Biden will last longer than Putin.
All that and you didn’t mention the greatest liar of them all. Looks like you might be in thrall to him.
But looks like Biden will last longer than Putin.
Exactly. Western systems have built-in feedback mechanisms and leaders and governments need to pay attention to what voters say and think. Countries like Russia have explicitly designed these out so that gradual change is almost impossible and change when it comes is sudden and catastrophic.
Will K is missing the point.
Besides which, Western countries don’t have “dissidents”. They only exist in autocracies.
Only we have things like Hunter Biden’s laptop, lying FBI, lying CIA, lying AG, lying mainstream media, and Soros funded groups doing ballot stuffing. Also, there are those Dominion voting machines that experts say are hackable.
I hope Putin sees this bro.
The difference being that many national governments are voted out if the public can see they’re taking the wrong direction, something that doesn’t happen in autocracies such as Russia. Granted the opposition aren’t usually much better, but at least having to fight for their jobs every few years means democratic governments have to change course occasionally. Putin facing no danger and surrounded by yes men simply carries on down whichever path he decides whether it’s right or wrong
The same problems (misfunction, dysfunction, inimical internal dissidents) are shared by many national Governments. The USA has had all of these problems for years. However unlike in Russia, US dissidents are rarely given amnesty.