FancyCat

Dmitri Alperovitch articulates that the main reason for Prigozhin's demise is his refusal to abandon his businesses in Africa to the rest of the Russian government mafia. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/09/05/yevgeny-prigozhin-assassination-vladimir-putin-wagner-deal-revenge/ Some excerpts, tho i strongly suggest clicking and reading thru the entire piece. So instead of some big play for the big boss, just a underling trying to keep his grasp on his share of the empire and unfortunately not taking the hint that he was done? Alperovitch brings up some decent points, that many high ranking people in Russia have given condolences for his death, Putin himself did not keep too much distance away from him, meeting him only a week after Prig supposedly almost went for his head.

You do know there is a certain perception that occurs around diplomacy right? Things like the way someone acts, how eager is so and so to talk, not to mention the undercurrent of diplomatic nuance, and how interactions can affect the different domestic and international actors watching the same diplomacy occur, it is not as simple as Biden ringing up Putin to give him so and so a piece of his mind, or whatever. Putin and the Russian government, when Western countries were discussing aid to Ukraine on the order of equipment of raising intensity, artillery, missiles, aircraft, you'll find cautious leaders like Macron, Scholz, cautioning to seek diplomacy, or non-escalation, Russia and Putin, should have indicated openness to talks, instead I recall in the Winter or Spring, Macron basically said that their overtures to Russia had gone unanswered, that the Russian government was doubling down on Ukraine, and that therefore France would be all in on supporting Ukraine. Biden asking to phone to Putin, would invite a lot of scrutiny, as again, there are ways for the U.S government to inquire about Russia's willingness to come to the table, and so whether or not Putin is eager to talk or not, Russia gets the domestic and international ammo to portray disruption in the Western consensus on support for Ukraine, get to sow opposition to supporting Ukraine, etc. So the strategic question isn't so much wheres the talking, its what are the conditions for the talking, and right now, both Russia and Ukraine have indicated positions far away from stances that may allow this talking. And the U.S has firmly placed itself on the side of 1. Ukraine gets full say in how long to wage war, 2. Russia must get out of Ukraine. So say you want Biden to talk to Putin, aside from the fact that Biden may get refused, and Russia gets to say that the U.S is cracking under pressure, what is there to say to Putin? And from what I've heard publicly from Biden and co, all options involving U.S or NATO intervention in Ukraine with boots or aircraft is off the table. So unless you think Biden should in a phone call threaten NATO intervention and risk Putin either calling his bluff or Biden looking humiliated by his words being false, you want high level talks to occur to do what exactly?

Totally sounds like a leader recognizing the only way forward now for Russia and Ukraine is negotiations.

Of course there's negotiations ongoing but we aren't going to hear about it for years, general public don't get that info. Public facing info, is the only tidbits we get to talk about. Something to keep in mind, public statements by Russian diplomatic and military figures has been for months focused on a set of demands that make it impossible for public negotiations to begin for Ukraine. If I'm recalling correctly, the ceding of the 4 partially controlled regions is one of the main demands by Russia. Explain how negotiations, which require both sides to agree to come to the table, before even talking at said table, can occur with such public contrasts from both parties on their demands and goals. Which leads in to what LongLeftFrank noted and what I was referenced in the BBC Russia article I linked, is the noted degradation of the Russian diplomatic service prior and during the war. Being instead of low level diplomatic contacts being able to parse out areas of concessions and agreement between Ukraine and Russia, you have Russian diplomats more concerned for their jobs, preening to be the top anti-Western spokesman. Indicating a Russian focus inward, or more precisely, like former President Medvedev acting like a drunken buffoon, a focus on satisfying Putin, who's seems keen on LLF's version of events. Oh sure Ukraine could indicate it wants talks and drop their demands down from withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukraine, except we run back into the current Russian demand for talks to begin, Ukraine must acknowledge the loss of Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, and Donetsk. So for negotiations to begin, both sides need to save face, or have realities they are willing to accept, neither is true at this point. Which is why NATO supporting Ukraine is a perfectly fine negotiating tactic. (And is indeed a tactic) Because it is in direct contrast to Russia's current negotiating tactic, exhausting Ukraine and the West to force them to cede territory uncontrolled by Russia to Russia.

article from BBC Russia on how Russian diplomacy is degraded and second fiddle to Putin. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66509180 notable quote:

How do we feel about GUR saying the drones that attacked Pskov were inside Russia? BS? if the reports of 20 drones are somewhat correct, thats a lot of stuff to be carrying around no? I wonder about the implications worldwide. From article linked: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/moment-of-drone-attack-that-destroyed-il-76s-at-russian-base-seen-in-infrared-image

Gosh, Ukraine knows how to make a scene.

There was a drone factory rumored to be ramping up near Moscow no? producing Iranian drones? That certainly counts as a military target.

That will be a interesting day. Neptune has that sort of range?

interesting Ukraine is targeting a base near the Baltic states, is that the closest base to NATO its hit? obviously pales vs Moscow, but like Moscow, I recall the threats and warnings Russia issued about NATO vs Russia conflict escalation occurring, and now Ukraine basically has normalized hostile drones in Moscow, hostile drones attacking facilities in Russia proper, and expanded potential zone of security to be quite wide, and quite in contrast to the start of the invasion.

Maybe it's just me but letting Russia and Russian settlers act all innocent like regarding their position in Ukraine when they are deliberately engaging a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Ukraine precisely to muddle the water and ensure a future Russian role in Ukraine does not really sit right with me? Sorta like the Pied Noirs, end of the day, they are colonial settlers, and for the successor state of the Soviet Union, a leading world power that engaged in their programs of ethnic cleansing and also pledged to uphold IHL and stop such atrocities from occurring and touted itself as a champion of decolonization, for Russia to not inherit those principles nor recognize their past history of atrocities, and to continue this history of ethnic cleansing, i have very little sympathy for Russia or these settlers post-2014. Not killing of course, but definitely expulsion should they not conform to the laws of Ukraine, and etc.

Nvm, maybe just revamping the cemetery.

Wagner cemeteries being demolished?

Anyone got a WSJ sub? https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/prigozhin-wagner-plane-crash-last-days-2c44dd5c

Tbf even tho that we think it was unrealistic and foolish, does not mean the Germans found the same conclusions, as you note, the German attempt to extract oil from the Caucasus was a failure, but it was a main reason for the Germans in for pushing for the Caucasus.

I would disagree, they absolutely need worldwide sentiment! India, China, Iran, other states whom Russia exports to for absolutely needed imports and currency to keep their economy afloat, in the event that Russia loses the Donbas and Crimea, those states have to continue weighing supporting Russia, assisting it avoid sanctions, exporting needed military hardware vs increasing sanction and Western pressure to stop supporting Russia. For example, consider China, say they want to keep sapping NATO strength, so they keep supporting Russia? If Russia loses the Donbas and Crimea, and continues to attempt to lob missiles and drones, what does China get out of supporting Russia still? They can't take back the Donbas or Crimea, NATO anti-air and anti-drone weaponry flow into Ukraine, attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure have already shown decreasing utility. What does China get back from Russia conticing a war of missile lobbing and civilians dying? Nothing, as war or no war, Russian exports must go to China anyway. As for sponsoring terror and insurgent action.....i think Russia has way more to fear from Ukraine on that front, we have Ukraine conducting assassinations, deploying drones in Russia's rear today, attacking air bases, refineries, threatening Russia's oil exports via the Black Sea....a situation where Ukraine retakes all territory, Russia is reduced to lobbing missiles, looks terrible from a international perspective, and recall the point today, where Ukrainian drones and missiles smack Russian airbases and skyscrapers, consider the extended viability of Ukraine justifying further attacks on Russian soil in response to Russian terror when Ukraine's territorial wishlist is fulfilled and the West can't gripe and groan about scaring the Russian bear.

That opposition would have been in favor of mobilization.

As Haiduk noted, if Russia loses Crimea and Donbas, that is basically Russian total defeat. Does not require invasion of the mainland Russian territories. I can't see a scenario where Russia has the combat potential to reinvade Ukraine but not defend Crimea or Donbas, or the domestic political currency to retreat from Crimea and Donbas and then attempt a new invasion of Ukraine. Whatever territory they lose, they won't regain it seems like. Meaning, if Russia loses Crimea and Donbas, worldwide sentiment will effectively abandon Russia as Russia has nothing to offer the world for its support in pursuing a 2nd invasion of Ukraine. Once Russia loses worldwide sentiment, Ukraine does not need to sign a peace treaty, Russia will need to in order to actually get some semi balance of economic recovery.

well dude failed to execute the coup, so sure, he was admired for his brute force, except he backed out and chickened out, i doubt this will make dissent in the regime, or make as big waves or any such. most people will duck their heads and go with the flow, which despite looking shaky, is now firmly back in Putin's orbit. question is, was this okay with the people supporting Wagner? or will the list of people out of windows get longer?

Good time for a reminder that the position Ukraine stands today is wildly out of step with what consensus considered Ukraine would be at pre-invasion (annexed). At many points between the inability for Russia to seize the country in the beginning days to today, perception of Ukraine's ability to wage war has changed, some could say drastically many times, so for me, while obviously it's a issue that Ukraine cannot achieve much in this offensive territorially, it's not a issue that should result in people insisting that NATO intervention into Ukraine is the only solution for total victory for Ukraine. I don't see any reason why the gradual support for Ukraine by the west isn't a decent strategy that will pay off sooner or later. Is it long? Yes and it should be pushed and sped up but acting like one offensive failing is the sky falling...I mean just looking at some campaigns of WWII should give you a heart attack midway thru.