this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023

5 points (85.7% liked)

News

1776 readers

6 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

The Wagner Mutiny Hit Russia's Air Force Hard. Really Hard. (www.popularmechanics.com)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Reports on casualties and aircraft shootdowns are a bit of a mess.

All sources were essentially shadey videos that were posted by telegram accounts and then regurgitated elsewhere. Unlike a lot of aircraft downings I haven't seen one video or photograph of a crash site, and in particular no bodies or confirmations of pilot names. This is unusual because typically civilians are first on scene to crash sites and take pictures/video.

It's also notable that Prigozhin claims to have killed nobody, Wagner claims to have killed nobody, and the Russian state via Peskov (press secretary) also claimed no casualties.

If Putin were aiming to turn people against Wagner for this, the killing of Russian service men ought to be a very easy way to do so. We're kinda lacking explanations for why both Prigo and the Russian state are claiming none of these actually happened, that nothing on the convoy was shot despite videos of bombings claiming that's what the videos were of, and that the videos of attacks on aircraft were false too.

Weird scenario really. I wonder if Russia will concede these happened and walk back claims to the contrary later though, it does seem that a lot of the pro-russia accounts are not letting go of them as having actually happened, even people like Strelkov keep raising the deaths of the pilots as "tragedies". Will be interesting to see what's real and what isn't when the dust settles.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

it's really hard to know what to think of all of this except that it's all very hard to take at face value. All I keep thinking of is how shocked the Russian people themselves must be. I'm curious as t what their media messaging is, and what they're being told-- I'm sure what we're being told is a mix of State messaging, rumor, and conjecture, but what they're getting is likely 100% propaganda. What must they think?

and something I haven't seen people asking: how much did Lukashenko know beforehand? Because this guy isn't the sharpest bulb in the shed. For him to suddenly sweep in with some negotiation that ends this so suddenly makes it feel like a setup.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russian people are not as unaware of current events as you may think. It's not like they don't have access to the internet, and the Russian media reporting on the day was not any less detailed or timely than Western media.

A common take that I've seen is that both Putin and Prigozhin appeared weak: Prigozhin by backing out, Putin by having no one standing up against Prigozhin as he drove into Rostov, and then letting Prigozhin off without any major repercussions.

It's unlikely that Prigozhin will come back due to completely discrediting himself in front of whatever support he had, but it's possible someone else may attempt the same thing at a later point. After all, if they win, they take everything; if they lose, they get a slap on the wrist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

oh, it's not that i think the Russian people don't have the same level of access to current events news as most other people, I was just curious as that what, specifically they were being told. But I think you answered my question.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I think you're doing Lukashenko discredit. While he's certainly not a nice man he's one of the very few people whose political careers survived the end of the soviet union, not only that but he prevented shock therapy from happening in Belarus, keeping much of the industry. More recently he managed to avoid the US attempts at regime change and successfully crack down on NED funded NGOs that existed to achieve those ends. All the potato memes should be seen as just that - memes. Lukashenko was the obvious party to go to as capable of being trusted by both Prigo and Putin, able to provide security and assurances to both. Very few others could have done it, Erdogan perhaps but Prigo is wanted for conspiracy to defraud the US in the west, he's on the FBI lists, so he couldn't go to a country with any extradition treaty with the US.

As for the Russian public they seem to view both sides of this disagreement positively, which is the complicated part of it. From their perspective this is two sides that they like having a disagreement. They love Wagner as war heroes but also love the Russian army as heroes too. So this whole situation is a "please stop fighting we like both of you" issue, how much of that is motivated by not wanting it to affect the frontlines is uncertain.

I mostly agree with the rest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

ya know... i can accept that I underestimated Lukashenko, but the swiftness of his response combined with the stunning and peaceful 180 by Prigo... you must admit, it's very suspicious. The clockwork timing of it all suggests something more complicated going on. This all feels like theater.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Will you reassess this thought in 3-4 weeks if/when nothing else happens? I think it's extremely unlikely that this is a grand scheme and that the reason this is being pushed comes from the fact that they have to keep the idea alive that Russia could collapse at any moment. If it isn't a grand scheme then its failure forces the acceptance that Russia isn't going to collapse and that the war is therefore entirely unwinnable, so it is much easier to present this as not having been a real coup/rebellion at all in order to keep that belief alive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

who is this mysterious "they"? And how did "they" get Prigozhin and Lukashenko to do this for "them" for the reasons you say? you claim it's not some "grand scheme" yet, in the next breath, you claim another?

If it isn’t a grand scheme then its failure forces the acceptance that Russia isn’t going to collapse and that the war is therefore entirely unwinnable.

And how in the world do you get from here to there? Because all i see now is a fractured and demoralized military that's lost all momentum, a weakened Putin, a shocked Russian public, and Prigozian and Lukashenko (and who knows who else) lurking in the wings. A lot has already changed, and uncertainty abounds.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh I apologise I forget sometimes everyone here isn't a marxist now after the reddit waves, marxists would just pick up the intention from context and keeping up with news via parties and groups they're in. The "they" here is generally western aligned think tanks and forces. In particular the Atlantic Council which is largely responsible for a lot of US policy has been pushing it around in the media recently.

And how in the world do you get from here to there? Because all i see now is a fractured and demoralized military that’s lost all momentum, a weakened Putin, a shocked Russian public, and Prigozian and Lukashenko (and who knows who else) lurking in the wings. A lot has already changed, and uncertainty abounds.

A marxist understanding of the war in Ukraine is as a war that was created by the west, led by the US, that benefits quite a significant number of MIC forces with large influence over US policy. Part of the narrative that maintains support for the war is the ongoing belief that Russia can be defeated, and the method of Russian defeated that has been drummed up is "Russia will collapse" as everyone with any sense can see that there is no military means of victory. If the "Russia will collapse" narrative is destroyed by the reality of a rebellion demonstrating massive support that makes any collapse obviously impossible then the entire house of cards that has been constructed falls down. Thus the result is pushing in the media the notion that it wasn't a real rebellion but instead a grand scheme by devious clever russians.

If you have questions about how the left interprets the war I'm happy to answer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

that's an... interesting viewpoint, and, as a "Westerner", i see little evidence to support this narrative aside from some Western think tanks both existing and, perhaps thinking what you propose. US media discusses a wide variety of possibilities and theories about what might be happening regarding this incident, but nothing is known for certain, especially who might prevail in this war.

as for what started this war? that was Russia's illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. period. and, unless you're implying that "the West" or even the US somehow controls him or his actions, I don't see how either had anything to do with Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

that’s an… interesting viewpoint, and, as a “Westerner”, i see little evidence to support this narrative aside from some Western think tanks both existing and, perhaps thinking what you propose.

You only need to look at (very small) sample of the attendees of the Atlantic Council's meetings to see that it is directly responsible for a huge amount of policy. These people aren't attending for a laugh, they attend because they know its power and have the same interests and goals as the organisation.

Understanding the role of these organisations in the wider net of actors is a fundamental knowledge area that most liberals don't have as a result of only really paying attention to media, who always play their role down as the media functions as fundamental collaborators with state interests.

as for what started this war? that was Russia’s illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. period. and, unless you’re implying that “the West” or even the US somehow controls him or his actions, I don’t see how either had anything to do with Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine.

This is the liberal western interpretation. It is not the global left's interpretation which has a fairly significant consensus that this war was caused by nato expansionism, ignoring fair security concerns, and the 2014 coup that led to the civil war that preceded this. The left generally doesn't view this war as having started in 2022 but instead in 2014, with Russia eventually joining as a belligerent after exhausting the potential methods of ending it via the Minsk agreements. Both the anarchist and socialist left worldwide pretty much agrees on this, with people ranging from Chomsky, Vijay Prashad, Wolff, Yanis Varoufakis, Lula, Corbyn, Cuba, Bolivia, european socialist parties etc etc etc all having the same take across the board. None of whom get much media exposure of that of course, because like I said before the western media is collaborative with the interests of western states.

I think for context I should add that I live in the UK and that from the perspective of British politics, american liberals are to the right of our conservatives, most of you would be Tories in the UK. Understanding this context is probably important for you to understand that I do not include liberals when I say "left" or "global left", the american democrats are extremely right wing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it's not a matter of "interpretation." Russia invaded a sovereign nation. Illegally. A war ensued as a direct consequence of that illegal invasion, and nobody but Russia is to blame.

you can cast aspersions at all of the people and nations and political ideologies you don't like, but it doesn't change those facts.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It's completely a matter of interpretation and narratives. The western community has one that serves their interests while Russia has one that serves their interests. Meanwhile the left has a completely different one that recognises the military industrial complex of america profiting off of its new forever war while millions of innocents are sent to their deaths.

You subscribe to the liberal one. That's fine. I do not.

I suspect our opinions differ on what "sovereign" actually is here too. I don't consider much of Europe to be particularly sovereign, but instead to be vassal states of US empire referred to colloquially by the american media as "the international community", a funny name given that it excludes 2 thirds of the world. We probably differ on that opinion as well though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

well, when the fact that the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is what started the war is what's inconvenient, that's when "narratives" and "interpretations" assert themselves to deflect blame and cast aspersions upon others who some happen not to like for whatever reason. It, however, doesn't change the facts of the matter, regardless of how many straw men, ad hominem, whataboutisms, or other logical fallacies get bandied about.

edit: something that has always fascinated me is how someone could so ardently claim to be a "Marxist" while going to such lengths to defend the actions of an oligarchic autarch of a strictly capitalist and fascist country.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Let's keep it calm yeah? Keep in mind that nothing either of us do or say here matters and there is zero need for it to get emotional. There's no need whatsoever for this to turn nasty and it'd be a shame if it did.

edit: something that has always fascinated me is how someone could so ardently claim to be a “Marxist” while going to such lengths to defend the actions of an oligarchic autarch of a strictly capitalist and fascist country.

Nobody has said that. However calling it a fascist country is just a complete misunderstanding of fascism. There is a faction of fascists in Russia, Navalny being a core figure among them. Putin and his faction are authoritarians, deeply unpleasant people, but fascists they are not and misusing the word is misguided. We should use it accurately.

I've also not defended them. I've said what the left's interpretation of the causes of this war are. You've turned that into "defender of russia" yourself. I can assure you that I and none of the other people I reeled off on that list are fans of the russian state. I want an end to the war, and I didn't want a state to it either. The difference between our factions is that liberals seem to think more guns and more bombs end wars, whereas socialists do not.

well, when the fact that the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine is what started the war is what’s inconvenient, that’s when “narratives” and “interpretations” assert themselves to deflect blame and cast aspersions upon others who some happen not to like for whatever reason.

You're doing the "narrative" here. You can't stop yourself from talking like a deeply propagandised individual, this phrase "illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not how normal people talk, it's precisely the language used to set a narrative, and is repeated over and over and over and over in liberal media as part of media collaboration with western interests to set this as the official line of the west and deeply engrain it in its populations. With that said this is a particularly american turn of phrase and is not one used in Europe after the pushback against it succeeded, resulting in at least a little more nuance in our regional politics on the matter.

It, however, doesn’t change the facts of the matter, regardless of how many straw men, ad hominem, whataboutisms, or other logical fallacies get bandied about.

That Russia invaded? Yes certainly. But without the context, without understanding the forces in play, without understanding the influences and the historical context you can't tell me WHY russia invaded. And that's the thing here. The liberal explanation of why is just "Because Putin grrrrr, conqueror!", which is I think something you must agree is not really an adequate or academic explanation.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Let’s keep it calm yeah?

I'm perfectly calm-- and I'm certainly not the one who feels the need to post massive tirades defending the actions of dictators and despots while making personal attacks while trotting out a litany of logical fallacies to obfuscate the facts: Russia started this war by illegally invading the sovereign nation of Ukraine. Their refusal to leave is what continues it. This isn't a "narrative" an "opinion" nor a "viewpoint", nor can you hand-wave these facts away by blaming politics, politicians, or political ideologies you don't like nor by inventing victimization or any other rhetorical stance you find convenient to your position because none of that changes the facts of the matter.

You can decry "the West" and insult "liberals" all you like, but neither invaded Ukraine-- Russia did, and that's what started the war. Ukraine's right to defend itself, and determination to continue, while Russia refuses to leave, is why it continues.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

And the point of answering why it happened is because it is a necessary component of finding the solution.

Let's try this instead, so that we're not focused on me and we're in an area that's a bit more constructive: Why do you think the war happened? What caused it?

I don't think I've insulted liberals that much here but for the sake of stirring the pot this is the general sentiment toward them in my city: It might help some culture differences going on here.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

i'm not particularly interested in unpacking the psychology of Putin, and, frankly, given the tenor of this interaction thus far, I don't have great faith that you'd be willing to suddenly shift to a good-faith discussion and drop the name-calling, the insults, or the throwing-around of logical fallacies. and if "stirring the pot" remains your intention rather than calm, rational discourse, I suggest you try antagonizing someone else.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

i’m not particularly interested in unpacking the psychology of Putin

We've swapped from discussing the actual concept of power, factions and influential forces that lead to a country going in one direction or another to "putin".

Do you think that this war would not have happened if a different leader existed? Which politician in United Russia would not have started this war? Which politician in the communist party? Anyone?

Get past the idea that this war was caused by one man. There are material causes and forces at work that go beyond that. Once you get past that then you can start to understand how and why things happen, something that is extremely useful in avoiding its outcome next time - something I absolutely want to see happen but also something I am not sure americans are capable of given that you've supported every single forever war america has ever engaged in.

and if "Stirring the pot remains your intention rather than calm, rational discourse, I suggest you try antagonizing someone else.

Hmmm I do have a somewhat constructive motivation, I'm trying to change the context a little. One thing I've found with my interactions on reddit is that americans don't tend to have an understanding of the left at all, given that the democrats are to the right of our right-wing. A lot of them say things like they want a nice welfare state but have no understanding of how radical the left has to be in order to achieve one, or to defend its existence. Jeremy Corbyn defends the USSR publicly and loudly. Diane Abbot has defended Mao on national TV. John McDonald publicly states "it is my job to overthrow capitalism". Frankie Boyle says we shouldn't be violent, we shouldn't do anything illegal, instead we should make it legal to kill all the capitalists, on national TV with the BBC funded by the taxpayer. My point in stirring a bit is to draw a little more attention to the culture differences we have. Because Americans often seem to mistakenly think they have a left when they don't, and I've found that drawing attention to these significant baseline differences sometimes inspires a bit more curiosity in american liberals to understand it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

looks like i was right in that you have no interest in dropping the name-calling, the insults, or the throwing-around of logical fallacies in exchange for calm, rational discourse.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Ah man. I'm not sure where I did that this time. Tell me what's grated you and I'll take it back. I thought I gave you a pretty explanatory response.

Is it because I keep calling american liberals right wing? I thought the last portion of my comment explained quite well what a real left looks like, that's our left, those are our luke-warm mainstream folks with their socdem policies of welfare capitalism saying all the things that would get you called a tankie on reddit. That's the soft-left of the UK, not even the hard-left.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You get called a tankie because of your die-hard support for authoritarian dictatorships crushing opposition using their military and police, such as by constantly advocating for anyone in western democracies to cease support for those oppositions, is the one and only reason you get called a tankie.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I have not said you should not support the ukrainian people. The problem is that you do not, you are nationalists that support the ukrainian state, not the lives of human beings. They are two quite separate things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

how predictable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

What was?

load more comments