Again on Prigozhin's exquisite ironic feint : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/06/25/yevgeny-prigozhin-moscow-advance-putin-threat-wagner-family/

For those who believed that the 'Prigozhin's feint' was supposed to inspire confidence in Russians, here is the RUB/USD exchange rate at the Moscow Exchange:



Before the mutiny the ruble was decreasing in value, but somewhat slowly; after the 24th the traders have decided they no longer want to have rubles... Devaluation of 10% against dollar, yuan and euro in two weeks is quite telling - the confidence does not seem to be inspired.

Wagner chief walks free after armed revolt. Other Russians defying the Kremlin aren’t so lucky
^{— Dasha Litvinova · AP · Jun 27, 2023}

, a bit has been said (and speculated)

Prigozhin’s public support remains significant despite Russian propaganda efforts, polls show.
^{— Anatoly Kurmanaev, Julian Barnes · The New York Times · Jul 3, 2023}
↑ plausible

Wigs, guns and a giant sledgehammer: Russian media attacks mercenary chief over lavish home
^{— Yuliya Talmazan · NBC · Jul 6, 2023}
↑ plausible (no mention of Putin + palace on Russian state TV? :grin:)

Lukashenko Says Prigozhin Is in Russia, Not Belarus
^{— Valerie Hopkins, Anatoly Kurmanaev, Ivan Nechepurenko, Eric Schmitt, Paul Sonne · The New York Times · Jul 7, 2023}

We don’t follow his movements. We have neither the ability nor the desire to do so. — Peskov

↑ Peskov not really all that believable

No one from Wagner has visited barracks offered by Belarus, ministry adviser says
^{— Guy Faulconbridge, Kevin Liffey, Mark Trevelyan · Reuters · Jul 7, 2023}
↑ plausible enough (what's up, mercs in the wind, where, back in Bakhmut?)

Prigozhin’s fate remains unclear and it signals more trouble in Russia
^{— Jill Dougherty · CNN · Jul 7, 2023}
↑ Dougherty opines / offers analysis

:chin:

Indeed, Prigozhin's exquisite ironic feint is not over yet:

After long days of silence following the 'march on Moscow' on June 24, the founder of the Wagner militia Yevgeny Prigozhin reappears on social media with a vitriolic post against Russian state media, quoted by Novaya Gazeta.

"Reading the newspapers, hearing the stories on TV, makes me feel very bad, the TV bastards, who yesterday admired the Wagner boys, are now pouring all kinds of poison...

Remember TV bastards that it wasn't your children who fought in our ranks, it wasn't your children who died, but you bastards are making audiences with stories like this."

https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2023/07/08/prigozhin-ricompare-sui-social-e-attacca-i-media-russi_f4295770-f72b-490d-ad8e-eadabc5ee6b8.html?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=

NATO flexes muscle to protect Vilnius summit near Russia, Belarus
^{— Andrius Sytas, Sabine Siebold, John Irish, William Maclean · Reuters · Jul 8, 2023}

If Lithuania was alone, I would feel differently. — Edvard Rynkun, 67

If not for the NATO membership, things here could already be same as in Ukraine. — Elena Tarasevic, 55

"We are preparing for various provocations", border guard chief Rustamas Liubajevas said. He added that he feared waves of migrants at the border, or border violations, or military vehicles appearing at the border without explanation.

Seems unlikely that the Kremlin or Minsk cares much about NATO military presence, it's not like NATO is going to attack. Kaliningrad looks like a nice appetizer, though. :yum: j/k

Well, maybe democracy and all that isn't worth putting up a fight for? (Such a sentiment would certainly please dictators, theocrats, and such, to which the Ukrainians said "No" by the way.) What's in putting up a fight, though? Here it included things and moral concerns that can take a good while to mull over by a large number of mullets...err mullers:

US to send cluster munitions banned by over 100 nations to Ukraine after months of debate
^{— Natasha Bertrand, Haley Britzky, Jeremy Herb, Radina Gigova · CNN · Jul 8, 2023}
Ukraine says it won't use cluster bombs in Russia
^{— Olena Harmash, Vladimir Soldatkin, Ros Russell, Mark Potter · Reuters · Jul 8, 2023}
Use of cluster munitions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
^{— Wikipedia}

Seems like Sweden is finally getting into NATO.

All of this wouldn’t have been possible without Putin.

Wagner looking to expand their repertoire (☢ Voronezh-45)?

Wagner fighters neared Russian nuclear base during revolt
^{— Mari Saito, Tom Balmforth, Sergiy Karazy, Anna Dabrowska, John Shiffman, Phil Stewart, Polina Nikolskaya, Maria Tsvetkova, Anton Zverev, Christian Lowe, David Gauthier-Villars, Stephen Grey, Reade Levinson, Eleanor Whalley, Milan Pavicic, Daria Shamonova, Janet McBride · Reuters · Jul 11, 2023}

At a glance, it doesn't seem all that likely. Then again... Either way, Wagner could apparently have acquired materials from Voronezh-45 had they wanted.

Treisman opines:

Opinion: Welcome to the ‘looking-glass’ world of Putin’s Russia
^{— Daniel Treisman · CNN · Jul 10, 2023}

More "alternate world" type stuff (like Jun 16, 2023, Mar 4, 2023).

Rambling dude as usual (emphasis more or less like the original).

Preliminary results of the NATO summit.
Just like we thought:

1. Action Plan for Ukraine's membership in the Alliance (MAP) - cancel. Kind of take it faster.

2. Call country 404 to NATO. But they will accept - it is not known when and under what conditions.

Quite possibly never. And that's what realists in the Alliance are afraid to say out loud.

3. Increase military assistance to the Kyiv regime. Everything that is possible: rockets, cluster charges, airplanes.
The completely crazy West could not come up with anything else. Predictability of the highest level, to the point of idiocy. In fact, it's a dead end. World War III is getting closer.

What does all this mean for us? Everything is obvious.
The special military operation will continue with the same goals.

One of them is the refusal of the Kyiv Nazi group from membership in NATO, which we insisted on from the very beginning (which is impossible).

This means that this group will have to be eliminated (which is possible and necessary).

P.S. It was reported that Tokmok was shelled with cluster munitions. So, it's time to uncover our arsenals of these inhumane weapons. — Dmitry Medvedev · Jul 11, 2023

• nah, the Kremlin's invasion + bombery + all that brought wars closer, Ukraine told you "No", the UN likewise — leave Ukraine alone
• nah, Ukraine ain't ruled by a Nazi regime (actually, the regressing Kremlin is worse)
• Use of cluster munitions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Give it up already.

Opinion: Whatever happened to Mutually Assured Destruction?
^{— David A Andelman · CNN · Jul 6, 2023}

He would see this country burn if he could be King of the ashes — Lord Varys

↪frank Indeed, democracy is a bad system when most of the population is insane. — unenlightened

‘Resting,’ fired, believed dead: Russia’s missing generals reveal cracks in faltering military
^{— Tim Lister, Anna Chernova · CNN · Jul 13, 2023}

Surovikin — alleged Prigozhin supporter, whereabouts unknown, "on leave"?
Tsokov — RIP
Popov — airs complaints similar to Prigozhin's (Mishov), fired

Firing experienced commanders doesn't seem like a good idea. Might be smarter to take the noise as feedback? Anyway, who knows what's going on. Fear of mutiny, defection, public image? Whatever the case, there's additional evidence of Prigozhin's misgivings.

Now that the dust has settled, perhaps it's a good time to evaluate the balance of power in the conflict.

The last months have been marked by the long-awaited Ukrainian offensive. That offensive seems to have now concluded, with the result being what many had already expected - minor gains for Ukraine, but no real strategic impact as they were unable to pierce Russian defensive lines.

My sense is that this offensive was a failure in all ways but one. The one upside being that this offensive can be used for a long time to come as proof that Ukraine is still capable of launching offensives, and therefore is not yet defeated on the battlefield.

The veracity of such a view is questionable, considering the offensive was essentially a complete failure, but nonetheless it may function as a source of hopium for those who prefer not to face the facts, which seems to describe most of the western political top.


My prediction is that Russia will take over the initiative once Ukraine's offensive has completely halted, and once again will start offensive operations as we have seen in the past.

Depending the degree to which Ukraine's offensive has exhausted Ukrainian reserve capacity, the Russians may push for territory more aggressively than in the past, or if resistance remains fierce might opt for a more Bakhmut-style approach of grinding attritional warfare with artillery and other types of indirect strikes.


Mearsheimer seems quite confident that the Russians still intend to push for large amounts of extra territory, so there's a prediction we can come back to to test Mearsheimer's views in the future.


NATO's response in the Vilnius Summit has been quite telling - basically a clear 'no' with regards to NATO membership for Ukraine as long as the war continues, which suggests heavily that NATO is not looking to get more military involved than it already is.

As I predicted in this thread a long time ago, without direct NATO involvement Ukraine will continue to lose more and more as time goes on. It simply lacks the military capacity.


Lastly, the Prigozhin episode has been quite interesting. It's still hard to tell what exactly went on, but a few weeks back I noted it's probably best evaluated by the effect it has on the battlefield. From what I can tell, so far there have been little to no effects, and things developed pretty much how one would expect.

My sense therefore is that it probably was a rather fool-hardly attempt by Prigozhin to protest against the top military brass, and subsequently this was oversold by the media in the hopes that it would weaken Putin, which it probably has in some ways, but not enough to have an impact on the war from what I'm able to tell.

My emphasis

offensive seems to have now concluded — Tzeentch

the offensive was — Tzeentch

Why do you think so?

which suggests heavily that NATO is not looking to get more military involved than it already is — Tzeentch

NATO members (and whoever else) are indirectly involved (no declaration of war / combatants). Why "heavily" though?

fool-hardly attempt — Tzeentch

Plausible enough, yet makes Prigozhin appear dumber than a fairly successful entrepreneur. Is he that out of touch? Does it stack up?

Why do you think so? — jorndoe

There have been reports of the Russians pushing for territory in the north. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians haven't reported any territorial gains for about a week or so. That to me is a pretty good indicator that the Ukrainian offensive has likely concluded, and the Russians might be looking to retake the initiative.

The Russians probably wouldn't go on the attack if they believed the Ukrainians may still have capacity left.

NATO members (and whoever else) are indirectly involved (no declaration of war / combatants). Why "heavily" though? — jorndoe

Biden stated Ukraine couldn't join NATO while still at war with Russia, obviously fearing what would happen if Ukraine invoked Art 5. and dragged all of NATO into the war, potentially triggering WWIII.

This is a big deal, because it basically puts the power in Russia's hands. As long as Russia continues the war, Ukraine can't join NATO, and NATO won't be getting directly militarily involved.

All of this was of course already implied, but when Biden says it publicly it means it's basically official NATO policy now. It's a harsh blow to Ukraine, because as I've argued earlier, their chances in this war are extremely slim without direct NATO involvement.

Plausible enough, yet makes Prigozhin appear dumber than a fairly successful entrepreneur. Is he that out of touch? Does it stack up? — jorndoe

I don't know. Much is still unclear and earlier I stated I would judge the episode by its effects on the battlefield, which haven't been noticable, so for now I'll settle on it having been an accidental fluke.

There have been reports of the Russians pushing for territory in the north. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians haven't reported any territorial gains for about a week or so. That to me is a pretty good indicator that the Ukrainian offensive has likely concluded, and the Russians might be looking to retake the initiative.

The Russians probably wouldn't go on the attack if they believed the Ukrainians may still have capacity left. — Tzeentch

You conjectures are as good as the following:
1. "the long-awaited Ukrainian offensive"will start late in summer to prevent Russia from doing the counteroffensive in rainy season, for now the Ukrainian tactic is just attrition along the line to prepare the right spot to drill.
2. The Russians probably would push in the north to weaken Ukrainians' capacity for their offensive in the south.

That is what you wrote ten months ago:

The failed Kherson offensive signaled that Ukraine was, as many had feared, no longer capable of conducting offensive operations - which would mean they had all but lost the war. — Tzeentch

That is, you have declared the Kherson offensive as failed (and Ukraine as losing the war) a bit prematurely, haven't you?

That is, you have declared the Kherson offensive as failed (and Ukraine as losing the war) a bit prematurely, haven't you? — Jabberwock

No, I think those were both bang on the money, and the current situation reflects that.

No, I think those were both bang on the money, and the current situation reflects that. — Tzeentch

What? You still consider the offensive in which Russians lost Kherson (the only oblast center they managed to take) as failed?

That is what you wrote ten months ago:

The failed Kherson offensive signaled that Ukraine was, as many had feared, no longer capable of conducting offensive operations - which would mean they had all but lost the war. — Tzeentch


That is, you have declared the Kherson offensive as failed (and Ukraine as losing the war) a bit prematurely, haven't you? — Jabberwock

Odd that you jump on this but not the wall-to-wall assessments of Russia's supposed immanent failure, incompetence, and collapse we've had since last year, none of which have yet materialised.

Nice justification for the continued weapons marketing campaign though, but I'm sure that's just coincidence.

Odd that you jump on this but not the wall-to-wall assessments of Russia's supposed immanent failure, incompetence, and collapse we've had since last year, none of which have yet materialised. — Isaac

I was just pointing out that his track record of prediciting offensive failures was not that good.

Nice justification for the continued weapons marketing campaign though, but I'm sure that's just coincidence. — Isaac

Russians have invaded Ukraine, Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself. What 'marketing campaign' are you talking about?

What? You still consider the offensive in which Russians lost Kherson (the only oblast center they managed to take) as failed? — Jabberwock

The offensive I referred to took place well before the Russians left Kherson. And it failed.

It's pretty obvious that Ukraine lacked the offensive capability to wrench Kherson from the Russians in an actual battle like the one we saw at Bakhmut.

They timed their 'offensive' when the Russians were pulling back to fix their overextended lines, and of course the western media propaganda spun this into a 'successful offensive'.

Pure nonsense.

I was just pointing out that his track record of prediciting offensive failures was not that good. — Jabberwock

No. You were selecting to do so to someone predicting the failure of Ukrainian offensives, but ignoring anyone predicting the failure of Russian action. Given the overwhelming quantity of posts here doing the latter and very few posts doing the former, it's hard to see how that could be without aim.

Russians have invaded Ukraine, Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself. — Jabberwock

Only if it has more chance of winning that defence than it does of being destroyed by it. Otherwise to provide weapons (alone) is monstrous.

What 'marketing campaign' are you talking about? — Jabberwock

See above. Convincing people that Ukraine has a chance of 'winning' is the main method by which continued drip-feed sales of weapons are justified (making the arms manufacturers an unrivalled fortune). Since Ukraine is actually being destroyed (economically, but also literally), it takes quite the major advertising effort to keep this illusion up. Hence the massive social media campaign, of which your posts (wittingly or not) form part.

The offensive I referred to there took place well before the Russians left Kherson. And it failed.

It's pretty obvious that Ukraine lacked the offensive capability to wrench Kherson from the Russians in an actual battle like the one we saw at Bakhmut.

They timed their 'offensive' when the Russians were pulling back to fix their overextended lines, and of course the western media propaganda spun this into a 'successful offensive'.

Pure nonsense. — Tzeentch

The aim of the campaign was to take Kherson and Kherson was taken. It is not that hard, is it?

If Ukraine lacked the capability to take Kherson, then Russians had no reason to leave it. Russian had 'overextended lines' precisely because Ukrainians have depleted their resources in the ongoing campaign. In simpler terms, Ukrainians made it so that Russians could no longer hold Kherson.

No. You were selecting to do so to someone predicting the failure of Ukrainian offensives, but ignoring anyone predicting the failure of Russian action. Given the overwhelming quantity of posts here doing the latter and very few posts doing the former, it's hard to see how that could be without aim. — Isaac

Yes. Tzeentch, in his own words, taken to 'to evaluate the balance of power in the conflict'. It was worth pointing out that he might not be the best person to do it.

Only if it has more chance of winning that defence than it does of being destroyed by it. Otherwise to provide weapons (alone) is monstrous. — Isaac

I agree.

See above. Convincing people that Ukraine has a chance of 'winning' is the main method by which continued drip-feed sales of weapons are justified (making the arms manufacturers an unrivalled fortune). Since Ukraine is actually being destroyed (economically, but also literally), it takes quite the major advertising effort to keep this illusion up. Hence the massive social media campaign, of which your posts (wittingly or not) form part. — Isaac

Russians were stopped, thanks to which Kiev and Lviv do not look like Mariupol. What gives you the reason to think that without weapons Ukraine would be less destroyed?

Given the overwhelming quantity of posts here doing the latter and very few posts doing the former, it's hard to see how that could be without aim. — Isaac

Assuming you are good at keeping stats.

Russians were stopped — Jabberwock

They evidently weren't. Last I checked they were still bombing the crap out of Ukraine. I don't call that stopped. Imparting motive is a very easy way of declaring victory. Here...

"I've totally trounced you in this this little exchange because you wanted me to stop posting and I haven't. So you lose"

See how easy it is to declare victory simply by imparting some motive on your opponent which you've carefully selected to show just that.

Treat the Russians as if they wanted to occupy Ukraine and sure, they've been stopped. Treat them as if they wanted to destroy Ukraine, to render it militarily neutered, then in what way have they been stopped? They're cracking on with that objective virtually unhindered. Every new billion in debt Ukraine gets to fund its defence is a step nearer that goal.

What gives you the reason to think that without weapons Ukraine would be less destroyed? — Jabberwock

Because I don't see anything in his history to give reason to believe the Putin would have just carpet bombed Ukraine for sport. He's clearly an oligarch, everything he's done thus far had been in the pursuit of money and power. Physically destroying Ukraine gets him neither unless Ukraine is a threat, either financially, politically, or militarily.

Assuming you are good at keeping stats. — neomac

Yes. Assuming that.

If Ukraine lacked the capability to take Kherson, then Russians had no reason to leave it. — Jabberwock

A very simplistic way of imagining things.

There's not really much point in debating. If you want to believe the propaganda spins and keep puffing the hopium, have at it.

I think if you were honest with yourself, you'd realize that the longer people cling to idle hope, the more people needlessly die and the more devastation is inflicted upon Ukraine.

They evidently weren't. Last I checked they were still bombing the crap out of Ukraine. I don't call that stopped. Imparting motive is a very easy way of declaring victory. Here...

"I've totally trounced you in this this little exchange because you wanted me to stop posting and I haven't. So you lose"

See how easy it is to declare victory simply by imparting some motive on your opponent which you've carefully selected to show just that. — Isaac

Their ability to bomb Ukraine has decreased quite dramatically, in part thanks to the weapons supplied, so yes, there is definitely improvement there. It is your claim that Ukraine would be less destroyed if the weapons were not supplied, so it is on you to provide a realistic and likely scenario how would that happen.

Treat the Russians as if they wanted to occupy Ukraine and sure, they've been stopped. Treat them as if they wanted to destroy Ukraine, to render it militarily neutered, then in what way have they been stopped? They're cracking on with that objective virtually unhindered. Every new billion in debt Ukraine gets to fund its defence is a step nearer that goal. — Isaac

Yes, I treat the Russians as if they wanted to occupy Ukraine, because I have no reason to think 'Putin would have just carpet bombed Ukraine for sport', him being an oligarch and all.

And you overlook the fact that Russia has neutered itself militarily even more. According to estimates, Ukraine has now more tanks than Russia (and more modern), its disadvantage in artillery has largely decreased etc. So I would not count that as Russia's success either.

Because I don't see anything in his history to give reason to believe the Putin would have just carpet bombed Ukraine for sport. He's clearly an oligarch, everything he's done thus far had been in the pursuit of money and power. Physically destroying Ukraine gets him neither unless Ukraine is a threat, either financially, politically, or militarily. — Isaac

Oh, so after all we agree that he did try to conquer Ukraine. However, as it is obvious from most of the campaign, with any reasonable resistance Russians are incapable of gaining ground without destroying it completely, so they would do just that.

A very simplistic way of imagining things.

There's not really much point in debating. If you want to believe the propaganda spins and keep puffing the hopium, have at it.

I think if you were honest with yourself, you'd realize that the longer people cling to idle hope, the more people needlessly die and the more devastation is inflicted upon Ukraine. — Tzeentch

We have two proposed scenarios: mine that Ukrainians have led a campaign of attrition due to which Russians had to leave Kherson and yours, in which Ukrainians have led a failed campaign and then by pure coincidence weeks later Russians have just packed up and left the only major city they have captured and which they have just days before annexed into Russia.

If you were honest with yourself, you would know which scenario is more likely.

I await Ukrainian success, as evidenced by their 'offensive' at Kherson, with bated breath. :pray:

Well, if Russians just packed up and left all the occupied territories, like they did in Kherson... that is a 'failure' that Ukrainians could live with.