After Wagner, Is Putin Better Or Worse off?. . . The Russian Bear In His Lair Leaves ’Em Guessing
By DEXTER DUGGAN
The Soviet Union as a lumbering bear was one symbol that had emerged of the vast, Communist-oppressed territory by the second half of the twentieth century — dangerous but slow on its feet, as epitomized by its elderly, ashen dictators.
Western observers called “Kremlinologists” or “Sovietologists” offered their insights, such as they were, into the bear’s ways — insights that often were establishmentarian and neither predicted nor desired a sudden upset and end to the cunning beast’s domineering rule.
After all, you have to be realistic and not perturb favored expectations during afternoon tea, some thought.
It likely would have been considered at least irresponsible if not amazing by the foreign-policy elite in, say, 1978 for a Sovietologist to foresee the Soviet Union, which formally began in 1922, as having collapsed and disappeared in less than 20 more years.
And if somehow this were to occur, how could such an entrenched totalitarianism thoroughly fall in the foreseeable future without nuclear war?
International leaders Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II were to come into office with a different set of beliefs that altered how the bear was treated, but the two politicians among them were regarded as outsiders who didn’t or wouldn’t count, while the Pope may have been a good fellow but lacked a military, as the late Soviet dictator Josef Stalin supposedly observed regarding an earlier Pope.
Moreover, the history and character of the pre-Soviet era’s Russia, which fed into the consciousness of the USSR, were so different from that of the United States that speculation, comparisons, and analogies were probably better avoided.
Probably every people and nation have their peculiarities. Russia gives us, for a few examples, the concept of Potemkin-village deception, serfs, and Grigori Rasputin, the damaging mystic ensconced with the final royal family.
Despite the advanced degrees, proclivities, and theories of the U.S. establishment, it came to pass that the Soviet Union collapsed by the end of 1991, after recent events including the dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 — the same year that Reagan’s eight years in the White House ended in January.
After internal upheavals and struggles, a former high-ranking Soviet intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin emerged as Russia’s leader, serving continuously as prime minister or president since 1999.
If the new Russia had had a “de-Communization” program such as defeated WWII Germany had a de-Nazification program imposed, former Communist officer Putin presumably would have had no hand in the new government. But for better or worse, he came out on top.
Whatever Putin’s deepest political loyalty may be, his reputation is a dictator who’s tough with his enemies and intends to retain power.
A few years ago, I met a young man from Moscow and a young woman from Kyiv, both visiting Phoenix to study capitalism, freedom, and the U.S. He strongly opposed Putin; she had hopes for betterment in her Ukrainian homeland. These days I sometimes wonder how he fared back home in Moscow. I know that she later returned to the U.S.
There were, after all, the videos of police vans scooping up anti-war demonstrators in Moscow after Putin invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Powerful Russia was expected to overwhelm Ukraine within days or a few weeks. Surprisingly, the war continues today, well over a full year later.
Suddenly in June most Americans heard the name of Yevgeny Prigozhin for the first time, the leader of tough mercenary fighters named the Wagner Group. Or were they selfless Russian patriots? He who furnishes the descriptions may define the setting.
They didn’t like the way things were. Were they disgusted with Putin presiding over a prolonged war, embarrassing Russia’s image — anywhere from appearing weak to appearing brutal and, anyway, depleting Russia’s resources?
In any event, the Wagner Group soon was headed, apparently threateningly, toward Moscow but then called off its seemingly easy advance.
On June 24 various news agencies announced that the two sides, Prigozhin vs. Putin, wanting to avoid bloodshed on Russian soil, had come to some sort of agreement in which Prigozhin would go to Belarus. He reportedly said he hadn’t intended to topple the government but to make his protest known.
Some observers said the apparent threat to Putin’s rule showed he was weakened. Others said that the quick end to Prigozhin’s challenge showed Putin’s power, and that Putin’s enemies don’t survive.
In an extra twist to the story, some media still regarded Donald Trump as some sort of special agent or colluder with Putin, so any ill fortune for Putin pleased them as a sort of swipe at Trump.
The Economist magazine, regarded by some as having well-informed international reporting, posted on June 24: “Precisely what Mr. Prigozhin hoped to achieve through his insurrection, and what he might actually have obtained, remains unclear. On one telling, Mr. Prigozhin bowed before the might of the Russian state and is lucky to be alive. On another, given the extraordinary ease with which he rolled towards Moscow, he may have extracted some as-yet-unspecified deal on, say, military leadership.
“Either way,” The Economist said, “Mr. Putin has shown he can no longer maintain order among his warlords. He has been greatly weakened by the challenge — and in his world weakness tends to lead to further instability.”
On June 24 National Review posted that Prigozhin was distressed over how the war against Ukraine had been going: “The complex relationship between Prigozhin and Putin has strained in recent months against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Ukraine. In May, the Wagner Group removed mercenaries from the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, citing Russian military incompetence and mismanagement.
“ ‘I am withdrawing the Wagner PMC [Private Military Company] units from Bakhmut, because in the absence of ammunition they are doomed to senseless death,’ Prigozhin said in full military fatigues and carrying an automatic weapon,” National Review wrote.
In an article headlined “Russia is still on the verge of disintegration, even if Prigozhin turned his men back,” UK Telegraph columnist Daniel Hannan thought Putin is ruling on borrowed time: “Putin’s power rests on projection, on propaganda, on the image of invincibility. Now, all of a sudden, the curtain has been snatched back, revealing the Wizard of Oz as a small, mediocre, frightened man….
“The siloviki, the strongmen around Putin, sense his vulnerability, and are making alliances in preparation for the transition,” Hannan said. “The generals and admirals who hold the other half of the nuclear codes could still be maneuvering. Perhaps nine of Russia’s regions and republics could be ready to call independence referendums, having had enough of a Muscovite clique which seizes their natural resources, conscripts their young men, and offers them nothing in return. . . .
“One man who understands these subtleties is Prigozhin, a minor Leningrad gangster who rose with Putin and was rewarded with a big catering contract before he launched the Wagner Group,” Hannan said.
A USA Today article posted June 28 said: “Zev Faintuch, senior intelligence analyst at Global Guardian •an international security firm with boots on the ground in Ukraine — said Putin’s ‘monopoly on violence in Russia is over.’ Putin’s power, Faintuch said, was derived from his ability to control the ‘underbosses’ of Russia.
“ ‘What is clear is that we are now witnessing the final act of Putin’s reign, and possibly even that of the modern Russian state,’ Faintuch told USA Today.”
Biden’s Fantasy World
In any case, the last thing the U.S. needs in these turbulent times — with war continuing in Ukraine due to massive U.S. funding, and an aggressive Communist China slipping the Biden “Catholic” crime family millions of dollars — is befuddled, elderly Joe Biden as commander-in-chief, backstopped by babbling incompetent, racially correct Kamala Harris.
From Caracas to Havana to Beijing to Moscow, dictators must laugh themselves to sleep at night with thoughts of babbling U.S. leader Biden spouting nonsense about building vital railroad bridges over the oceans and the “existential threat” of climate change, while he stumbles or falls on stairs and stages.
In one instance of how dangerous Biden’s fantasy world is, CNN, no enemy of his regime, once again noted on June 21 Biden’s continuing completely false claim that he has flown 17,000 miles with Chinese President Xi Jinping, “usually one on one,” as supposed proof of how close their relationship is.
“A White House official told CNN in early 2021 that Biden was adding up his ‘total travel back and forth’ for meetings with Xi. But that is very different than traveling ‘with him’ as Biden keeps saying, especially in the context of his boasts about how well he knows Xi,” the CNN story said. “Biden has had more than enough time to make his language more precise.”
The same CNN story noted, among various falsehoods and bloopers by Biden, the president’s utterly weird claim that putting a brace on a pistol turns it into a gun and allows it to fire higher-caliber bullets. The story noted that a pistol already is a gun, and a brace has no effect to increase the caliber.
These aren’t instances where he stutters or keeps calling Ukraine by the name of some other country. This is Biden speaking obvious nonsense.
An Underground Deal?
The Wanderer asked two sources to comment on the recent events in Russia. National conservative commentator Quin Hillyer said on June 28: “Even if liberal activists tried to excuse away the Soviets while now treating Putin as a pariah, the important thing is that this time they are correct. Likewise, any so-called ‘conservative’ who in any way, shape, or form tries to defend Putin is a hypocrite of the first order and, worse, this time is dead wrong. He is a murderous thug.”
Mary Ann Kreitzer, who runs the Virginia-based Catholic blog Les Femmes — The Truth, said on June 28: “The situation between Russia and Ukraine gets ‘curiouser and curiouser’ in the words of Alice in Wonderland. I’m not sure what to make of the Wagner Group’s ‘attempted coup.’ It was certainly resolved quickly. When I look at a map, sending Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner Group to Belarus seems to put Ukraine in a squeeze position facing hostile troops on multiple fronts.
“Could there be an underground deal with a false conflict between Putin and Prigozhin? On the other hand, everything I’ve read indicates the hostile move was real,” Kreitzer said. “But then, these days, where the tail is often wagging the dog, it’s hard to know the truth. The mainstream media is touting this as a defeat for Putin that makes him look weak. On the other hand, his immediate taking charge and resolving it makes him look presidential.
“So where is the truth? I don’t know enough about military matters to say,” Kreitzer said. “But it certainly adds to the head-shaking confusion of this endless conflict that is devastating the poor people of Ukraine. Pray for peace.”
Kreitzer also sent along for consideration a June 28 post from the LewRockwell.com blog, which bills itself as “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.”
Written by Pepe Escobar, a Brazilian journalist and geopolitical analyst, the column is headlined “Putin wins — on all counts” and comments: “As for the dazed and confused collective West, especially the NATO-Kiev junta, with everyone instantly rebranding Wagner from ‘terrorists’ to ‘freedom fighters,’ getting bogged down in their own swamp is the art they excel in. . . .
“Putin winning on all counts implies the whole civilian population — and the military — engaged into preserving him and the Russian institutions, as well as perfecting them,” Escobar said. “There’s absolutely no nation anywhere across the collective West where we find this level of citizen support.
“Russian politics is a special animal. It works at the highest level and also at grassroots level — unlike in the West, where the norm is deep hatred between the elites and the people,” he said. “…For a few hours, the West was betting heavily on the dismemberment of Russia. Not now. And not in the foreseeable future.”
