Coming from a country and regime of ‘their truth’, the world has become puzzling for me. Having read about Harry, the Prince and the Spare, and Putin delivering the main points of his understanding of the world order (the West has been trying to do… ‘whatever’ to Russia in all its glory) I can’t help agreeing with Whoopi Goldberg’s comment on Meghan the Duchess’ bitterness of having been the suitcase girl – it’s maybe how you FEEL you were treated. How you FEEL things are/were. How come the world has accepted the ‘their truth, how they feel’ as the truth (they=someone thinking differently from what seem to be the real facts)? How come the British phrase ‘take offence’ (= you take it, regardless of if it actually has been given) has established itself, in its most extreme, as a reason for starting wars? “Prigozhin this month accused Russia’s military command of being out of touch with the realities of the Ukraine conflict” – what is HIS truth, I wonder? Sending the sick and infected from the prisons (red handbands for the HIV and white for the hepatitis, or was it vv) to protect the Russian Motherland on the Ukrainian soil?
P.S. and I resent Putin saying NATO should ‘pull back’ – as a citizen of a former soviet republic, who is happy to have NATO as an alternative to Putin’s truth. Whatever wrong the US of A has committed in the past. At least they’re decent enough to admit now and then they had been ‘somewhat wrong’.
While destroying what’s left of the regular Russian Army.
An SS in the making.
martin logan
1 year ago
The psychotics are finally taking over. Putin is no longer in full control.
Note that Vagner’s three-month attack on Bakhmut has no military value. Its sole purpose is to claim that Russian forces are “still on the offensive.” The reality is that they are losing on every front.
So this is the Third Reich in early 1945, with the gauleiters jockeying to take over a doomed regime.
But just as no one could replace Germany’s ruler in 1945, no one will be able to replace this “Vozhd.”
Several people (e.g. Streiff) have been puzzling over the continuing Bakhmut assault, which makes no sense, militarily. Seeing it as Prigozhin’s private war within the more general Ukraine war makes sense of it.
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
From the author’s description, Prigozhin sounds just as bad if not worse than Putin. Will we be any better off in the long run if some other militarist autocrat takes over Russia? Will the Russians? I doubt it. Then again, most of Russia’s history is a long chain of autocrats, militarism, and expanding at the expense of weaker neighbors. There’s probably already a line of wannabe Tsars forming behind Putin already just waiting for an opportunity to do the same things Russia has always done and act like they’re the greatest leader in the history of the motherland.
I’m pretty sure that predictions cannot be proven until after the event, bold or otherwise.
Unless of course you really did mean predications. If you did I have nothing useful to add.
Coming from a country and regime of ‘their truth’, the world has become puzzling for me. Having read about Harry, the Prince and the Spare, and Putin delivering the main points of his understanding of the world order (the West has been trying to do… ‘whatever’ to Russia in all its glory) I can’t help agreeing with Whoopi Goldberg’s comment on Meghan the Duchess’ bitterness of having been the suitcase girl – it’s maybe how you FEEL you were treated. How you FEEL things are/were. How come the world has accepted the ‘their truth, how they feel’ as the truth (they=someone thinking differently from what seem to be the real facts)? How come the British phrase ‘take offence’ (= you take it, regardless of if it actually has been given) has established itself, in its most extreme, as a reason for starting wars? “Prigozhin this month accused Russia’s military command of being out of touch with the realities of the Ukraine conflict” – what is HIS truth, I wonder? Sending the sick and infected from the prisons (red handbands for the HIV and white for the hepatitis, or was it vv) to protect the Russian Motherland on the Ukrainian soil?
P.S. and I resent Putin saying NATO should ‘pull back’ – as a citizen of a former soviet republic, who is happy to have NATO as an alternative to Putin’s truth. Whatever wrong the US of A has committed in the past. At least they’re decent enough to admit now and then they had been ‘somewhat wrong’.
The USA’s best sales pitch at this point is “still better than the alternatives.”
Like Churchill’s defense of democracy!
Exactly! Worst form of government except for all the others.
btw, quite an interesting one (at least for me): What causes armies to lose the will to fight? Here’s what history tells us – and what Putin may soon find out
Criticising the war effort, not the actual war; so, no peace for Ukraine even if Prigozhin becomes more influential or powerful.
While destroying what’s left of the regular Russian Army.
An SS in the making.
The psychotics are finally taking over. Putin is no longer in full control.
Note that Vagner’s three-month attack on Bakhmut has no military value. Its sole purpose is to claim that Russian forces are “still on the offensive.” The reality is that they are losing on every front.
So this is the Third Reich in early 1945, with the gauleiters jockeying to take over a doomed regime.
But just as no one could replace Germany’s ruler in 1945, no one will be able to replace this “Vozhd.”
The very worst outcome for every Russian.
The Germany WW2 comparisons have gone from 1938 Sudetenland to early 1945 in only 7 months – I guess we should be happy 🙂
History, like everything else seems to move faster these days….
Several people (e.g. Streiff) have been puzzling over the continuing Bakhmut assault, which makes no sense, militarily. Seeing it as Prigozhin’s private war within the more general Ukraine war makes sense of it.
From the author’s description, Prigozhin sounds just as bad if not worse than Putin. Will we be any better off in the long run if some other militarist autocrat takes over Russia? Will the Russians? I doubt it. Then again, most of Russia’s history is a long chain of autocrats, militarism, and expanding at the expense of weaker neighbors. There’s probably already a line of wannabe Tsars forming behind Putin already just waiting for an opportunity to do the same things Russia has always done and act like they’re the greatest leader in the history of the motherland.
Don’t worry.
Putin has ingeniously made it impossible for anyone else to rule Russia.
As one toady put it: “there is no Russia without Putin.”
And soon there will be neither.
Any proof for such a bold predication?
I’m pretty sure that predictions cannot be proven until after the event, bold or otherwise.
Unless of course you really did mean predications. If you did I have nothing useful to add.
Simply point out any Russian politician who could succeed Putin.
They don’t exist.