Ukraine War: Wagner’s fading thrust

[James Arryn]

There’s zero doubt imo that Putin and his supporters will try and spin this as a victory. That’s one of the few things about all of this that’s pretty easy to predict/understand. It’s also quite likely that, as we see everywhere, people who have already bought into him and/or authoritarianism will be perfectly happy to see it whichever way keeps them  from having to question anything, especially their own choices. Whether that comprises a sufficiency is well beyond my rudimentary grasp of the Russian political situation. That’s almost as impossible to judge as it is for Russians from the other side because of course our side employs rooms of weavers too.

 

More and more contemporary history seems to revert to the Greens vs. the Blues + technology.

Edited June 25, 2023 by James Arryn

[polishgenius]

50 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

This theory presents Prigozhin as an utter dumbass (which frankly is not out of realm of impossibility) who thought Putin would quietly stand aside while he deals with Shoigu and MoD. And also to believe Shoigu's decret forcing Wagner to join regular army went without Putin's blessing.

Nah, I don't think it needs either thing. Equally possible is that Prigozhin knew it was a long shot, but that with Shoigu in position to put that pressure on to fold in Wagner - and to eventually have him killed, coz I'm sure he's been expecting that - he didn't have any non-drastic options. So he decided to try to show Putin that Shoigu is incompetent and hope that that was enough to persuade him to drop that decree and hopefully depose Shoigu entirely.

tl;dr: it's as likely to be a plan of desparation, not stupidity. 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

I think Prigozhin overestimated his influence with Putin and underestimated Shoigu's influence with Putin. 

Shoigu seems to be one of the few people Putin absolutely trusts. They go on holidays together and Shoigu owes his entire career - and his spectacularly awful mansion - to Putin's patronage. Putin also knows that most Russians would not accept a Tuvan in any position of ultimate power (Prigozhin has made plenty of racist comments about Shoigu on that basis) which renders Shoigu a non-threat to him politically. That kind of deep-seated loyalty is something Putin appreciates.

The problem is that Shoigu is also a bit of a political lightweight who doesn't really understand advanced military theory, and is a bit of a bungler. He relies on the much more experienced Gerasimov for a lot of his advice, which he doesn't always take.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Technically it is similar to some of those forces from the Renaissance period. Venice, especially, but also Milan and other Italian states would offer longer and longer terms of contracts for the condottieri to the point in the 15th century that their contracts were permanent, and eventually evolved into the state armies for those republics/duchies. I mentioned in the previous thread how the mercenary captain Francesco Sforza took over Milan from the Visconti. 

That ... seems ... rather more simple than what actually happened.  Especially for Sforza, which seems to resemble more how Normandy got to be Normandy.

It was states with great tax revenues that put the end to mercenaries as we think of them classically, anyway.  I wouldn't be surprised as states get weaker and weaker thanks to the billionaires, that mercenary companies as we think of them in the 14th century, for instance, could come back.  Or, we can call it what it is, warlordism.  Which we sure have in stateless Haiti now, and is the state, ahem, the case in various regions of Mexico, for instance.

[Zorral]

15 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Putin and his supporters will try and spin this as a victory.

Putin hasn't shown himself yet, has he?  Or have I missed something, going about outdoors this summer afternoon?

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Prigozhin is a multi-billionaire, owning loads and loads of businesses and properties all over Europe and Africa, and probably South America too.  He owns a diamond mine complex in Central Africa, for instance.  He, unlike a feudal mercenary commander, doesn't have to worry about finding money.

In many senses, though Wagner is called a mercenary troop, it's very different from what those were in the middle ages and the Renaissance.  It was formally a part of Russia's official national military, but semi-autonomous under his command, the point being to do Russia's dirty violence coercion work in places like Africa, while providing Putin with deniability of responsibility from accusations of doing so from both the locals who they murder and rape and torture, and more generally from the 'West.'

I'd say the idea that soldiers should be citizens of the country which they serve, mostly motivated by patriotism, is a fairly recent one, historically.  (It's an ancient notion, as well).

Pre-Napoleonic Wars, a lot of countries depended upon foreigners to fill up the ranks of their armed forces.  Either they were soldiers of fortune, or people down on their luck, or else, on the run from their home countries. 

Even when the regimental system came into being, in 17th century France, the government was still signing contracts with the Colonels of the regiments, for the supply of specified numbers of soldiers.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Maia said:

But will he still own these places once Wagner gets incorporated into MoD? It all seems like mafia style sort of ownership, where as soon as you can't defend your "properties" with armed force, you lose them. They might pass directly to Russian state now or Putin or whatever.  Or local commanders might make themselves independant, particularly if Wagnerites in Russia got shafted in the deal, which they likely were.

How do you think Putin would/could strip this multi-billionaire of his African diamond mines?  This isn't the same as having the Kremlin catering concession.

Many African states are fragile, or in reality not states at all, such as Haiti is no longer state -- as Central Africa for instance.  What would the official Russian forces coming in to take the mines from Prigozhin look like?  How will other nation states respond?

~~~~~~~~~~~

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

17th century France, the government was still signing contracts with the Colonels of the regiments, for the supply of specified numbers of soldiers.

Yes, like Britain hired all those Hessians from Hesse-Cassel to fight rebels in the North American colonies, as this was a statelet so poor ithired out their male citizens to the armies of those who could pay.  Kind of like Cuba hired out its medical personnel to places that had none.

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Zorral

[IFR]

I just really hope Armando Iannucci is hard at work writing a Death of Stalin-esque satire of this entire debacle.

What a turn of events.

[Chad Vader]

41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Putin hasn't shown himself yet, has he?  Or have I missed something, going about outdoors this summer afternoon?

According to Wagner he wasnt in Moscow because that's where the threat he created was heading

[dog-days]

27 minutes ago, IFR said:

I just really hope Armando Iannucci is hard at work writing a Death of Stalin-esque satire of this entire debacle.

What a turn of events.

Indeed, though sadly no room for a Marshal Zhukov/Jason Isaacs type character in this latest one.  

Edited June 25, 2023 by dog-days

[Zorral]

Just listened to the latest BBC World Service interviews with those who are professional experts on the Russian military.

It fairly back up what we think regarding Wagner personnel.  The Russian military needs them, but can't integrate them into the military with the others due to several reasons, just starting with the fact that the failures of the Russian military and its leadership is exactly what set off this event in the first place.  Can't have those traitors -- Putin's label -- in the trenches with the others, spreading their poison.

Then a short run down of all the countries in African where Wagner is active -- paid mostly with mineral and other extraction rights, so ample ample ample scope for Prigozhin (and others) to make their own deals, personal deals, despite being the deniability of Russian military / violence forcing these concessions.

And no, Putin hasn't been seen by anybody for the entire weekend.

[James Arryn]

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I'd say the idea that soldiers should be citizens of the country which they serve, mostly motivated by patriotism, is a fairly recent one, historically.  (It's an ancient notion, as well).

Pre-Napoleonic Wars, a lot of countries depended upon foreigners to fill up the ranks of their armed forces.  Either they were soldiers of fortune, or people down on their luck, or else, on the run from their home countries. 

Even when the regimental system came into being, in 17th century France, the government was still signing contracts with the Colonels of the regiments, for the supply of specified numbers of soldiers.

Nationalism may have begun with mixed motives, but the evolution of patriotism is just another way of getting the masses to fight and die for the material interests of people who are rarely seen anywhere near live action. Studies show that most soldiers almost always have only a vague idea of why they are fighting…other than, since nationalism, almost everyone fighting on every side in every war thinks they are the ones under attack. 

[Zorral]

Well, I do honestly believe that Russians, the average Russian person, fought the French because they cared about their country -- and hated the invader.  Same with the invasion of the nazis.  Whether a traditional, 'modern' nation state or not, historically people do rally together when foreigners invade.  They may not succeed/win, as Russia did in the two examples above (the Native Populations in many places did not) but they did resist and they fought to keep their land and way of life.

[SeanF]

27 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Nationalism may have begun with mixed motives, but the evolution of patriotism is just another way of getting the masses to fight and die for the material interests of people who are rarely seen anywhere near live action. Studies show that most soldiers almost always have only a vague idea of why they are fighting…other than, since nationalism, almost everyone fighting on every side in every war thinks they are the ones under attack. 

I’d say that the mass armies that developed after 1790 often were pretty committed to the fight. And the upper and middle classes frequently took heavy casualties at junior to mid-ranking officer level.

Repeated defeats, or victories so costly they might just as well be defeats, would see rates of desertion, and evasion of conscription, soar.  As would failure to pay or supply the soldiers adequately.

[Derfel Cadarn]

When you go on a bender on Friday night because Shoigu’s a fucking prick, and wake up just before lunchtime on Saturday to learn you’ve launched a coup against the Russian government, are winning, and with nothing between you and Moscow but some torn up roads.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Derfel Cadarn

[Gorn]

Assuming it was Utkin that actually commanded that run on Moscow, I wonder if Prigozhin consulted with him or even included him in the deal that he made, and what he thinks of it and what his plans for the future are.

[James Arryn]

6 hours ago, Zorral said:

Well, I do honestly believe that Russians, the average Russian person, fought the French because they cared about their country -- and hated the invader.  Same with the invasion of the nazis.  Whether a traditional, 'modern' nation state or not, historically people do rally together when foreigners invade.  They may not succeed/win, as Russia did in the two examples above (the Native Populations in many places did not) but they did resist and they fought to keep their land and way of life.

It is one of mankind’s greatest tragedies that the war that did the most to formulate popular understanding of war was among the greatest of exceptions. So since then the exception became the rule, and wars were bought and sold and countless civilians died because oh, appeasement.

[Makk]

There are some people who are arguing that Prigohzin has the FSB in his pocket and the deal is all about a bloodless transition of power. Prigohzin will be on the ballet for the next election which is on the 17th of March and he will win because the FSB always rig it and they need a putin successor. Not sure I believe it but it's a plausible explanation. Whatever the case this isn't over yet. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

This has been such an odd sequence of events that turned around on a dime several times; I think everyone is looking for any sort of explanation to rationalize it, even if one may not exist. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 hours ago, Zorral said:

How do you think Putin would/could strip this multi-billionaire of his African diamond mines?  This isn't the same as having the Kremlin catering concession.

Many African states are fragile, or in reality not states at all, such as Haiti is no longer state -- as Central Africa for instance.  What would the official Russian forces coming in to take the mines from Prigozhin look like?  How will other nation states respond?

I am sorry, you really assume he gets to keep those?

He will receive an offer he can't refuse and those mines will be sold for a knock-off prize to another Kremlim oligarch. Or his assets will simply be seized by a court in Russia.

He isn't the owner of those mines, he is merely the custodian. He will live out his life (however long that is) as a rich man, but he won't keep those African mines.