Very insightful analysis, as expected, and this is a zinger! : "it is important to specify a difference between Putin and Prigozhin's fascism and that of the 1930s. The two men are both very concerned with money, ....... They are oligarchical fascists -- a breed worth watching here in the US as well."
I’ve appreciated this distinction also, but my phrasing, ‘neofascist predatory kleptocrat doesn’t roll off the tongue like ‘oligarchic fascist.’
So, the new ubermensch isn’t an ideal of racial purity, unlike Hitler’s but rather the most ruthless gangster most willing/able to con the masses.
Talk about sorting psychopaths to the top of the power structure. Yikes
The new breed of fascism uses state power to corner resources for personal use, rather than using resources to maximize national power. The world is learning this model leaves essential national capabilities like the military hollowed out, all the loot in oligarchs offshore bank accounts, and Russia now exposed to significant insecurity of its own making. Because their military is an illusion now broken.
"The world is learning this model leaves essential national capabilities like the military hollowed out, all the loot in oligarchs offshore bank accounts [. . .]." This is what I simply cannot understand. If you're going to fight a war you need to have a disciplined, well-trained, well-fed army. This cannot happen if money is being siphoned out of budgets. In fact, it's downright weird.
When all the people in power are thieves and liars, everyone hides their looting and the extent of it is not clear to anyone in particular…until there is a need to actually use it.
But does anyone care that the oligarchs are thieves and liars? Putin knows, he enables all of the top guys. They have been at it for a very long time probably long before Putin came along. Now their children have learned the ropes and are now training their kids. The people, especially in Moscow and St Pete’s know that the grift is on and shrug, and the old folks back on the farm accept it as the way things have always been. I’m pretty sure that there are wannabe baby oligarchs pocketing rubles or favours all the way along and everyone goes along.
My $0.02 - Yes, the attitude of much of the Russian population is acceptance and cynicism-this ubermensch is largely accepted as a new natural order - a modern survival of the fittest. But it is complicated. I think Russians generally do care, it is nationalist impulse that Putin and Prigo use to manipulate their extremist true believer cults that actually will carry out violence for them.
But the general population I think wants to see Russia succeed, to have opportunities and especially when it comes to security, they don’t want to be ruled by such incompetence they get trampled by foreign invasion.
But Russian society is really different than ours and there is general acceptance that whoever is in power will be corrupt, untrustworthy and authoritarian. And more to the point, there is general acceptance that it is futile to resist the authorities in any way publicly.
So when Prizo launched this mutiny, and was able to expose that his troops were able to easily take a large Russian city and make it hundreds of miles towards Moscow without facing significant resistance - he’s messaging that he’s the more powerful gangster to the people…and the Russian people seemed to not reject that or show ANY public displays of support for Putin.
The prospects for liberal revolution or reform remain pretty slim. The machine is primed to put another psychopath at the top unfortunately. But maybe cracks in Putin’s regime will bring out to the forefront much pent up dissent which might guide reforms in a better direction.
"The prospects for liberal revolution or reform remain pretty slim." Hard agree. I just can't see it. I greet any optimistic talk of liberalism in Russia with a raised eyebrow and silent stare.
Well said. Having done a tiny bit of forensic accounting in the past, it is very possible that the smoke and mirrors each actor puts in place leave all the actors in the dark as far as what exists on paper, and what little substance may back that up.
OK, but the Russians are ensconced on 18-20 % of Ukraine’s territory for a year now. If they could make off with most of that in a ceasefire, they could claim victory.
Potter, as soon as I started reading English translations of what is being posted on Russian Telegram Channels (from Feb. 24, 2022 to the present), this is something I came across over and over again: soldiers constantly complaining about having supplies stolen and sold on the black market; lack of food and water; commanders who don't command but instead loot; harsh punishment; constant drunkenness, und so weiter.
Hi, HL, I don't have a T'gram account myself, nor do I have a twitter account. But I do read other people's Twitters, and this is where I find Russian T'grams. One of the very best is Dmitri @WarTranslated (https://twitter.com/wartranslated). He is fluent in Russian and Ukrainian, and also translated videos that Russians and Ukrainians release. He regularly did translations of Prigozhin's videos. Dmitri is someone Professor Snyder has recommended, but I'd found him several months before that. If I find any other good ones, I'll send them to you.
Ed, watch this video Russian soldiers made yesterday, 28 June, that I just found at Dmitri's @ WarTranslated twitter account. It encapsulates everything we've been discussing in this thread in only 2m 24s. "On the zero line, we were not provided ammo, food or water." / "wounded were not evacuated, the dead are still rotting there." / "We refuse to obey orders for a number of aforementioned reasons." / We served for 3 months, never been paid." / And most interestingly: "The point of this address is that we'll send it to all our relatives." I'm wondering how they will do this. Will it be by T'gram? by text? Does the Russian government have the means to block texts? etc. If they are successful, and word starts to get around . . . https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1674370881332686851
This excellent analysis lays clear before us what is actually going on, as opposed to a lot of the breathless nonsense published elsewhere. Professor Snyder, you have become indispensable! I hope you are appreciated in all the high places where clear sightedness is necessary.
PS: Your class on Ukrainian history is essential learning for those who want to understand the background to current events, not to mention that you are a very talented teacher. Thank you!
I couldn't agree more! Like most Americans and western Europeans (I suspect), I was shamefully ignorant about the history of the Ukraine before taking Prof. Snyder's course. I encourage everyone to take it. Even our elected officials. No, especially them.
The only quibble I have is the Nazis disguised their wholesale thieving as ideology. They were extremely concerned about money and made Auschwitz, for example, a production line to deliver all the belongings as well as some body parts of Jews to Germany. ‘Kanada’ was the meticulous processing line in Auschwitz. Of course the Nazis stole homes, farms, art work, businesses and all other real property too. They delivered baby shoes and prams to German mothers after they killed the Jewish ones with their babies. The important thing here is that this was systematic stealing, not an incidental ‘byproduct of a philosophy’.
"The origin of all wars...is the desire to steal; and so Voltaire quite rightly says: 'dans toutes les guerres il ne s'agit que de voler.' " ['In all wars it is only a question of stealing.'] Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena.
Spelling checks don't catch stuff if it's a word, such as "no" instead of "now," as happened here. I went through a phase of too quickly typing 'this" as "shit." fortunately I checked visually and caught it before my clients did... :)
I forgive...I make a lot of typos myself, even after I correct. The ones above are not critical to the main points nor the sentences. Your brain corrects.
Prof. Snyder got this long piece out early and with a lot of obvious organized thinking involved.
RV maxima: I find your comment to be an argument ad hominem—attacking the person rather than addressing the issue. Very bad form. You come across as dismissive, arrogant and very male sexist.
Cheryl F. makes a clear point about the connection between typos and reading difficulties. She made it humbly and in good faith. At the very least, she merited a respectful, thoughtful, objective response from you which addressed, not her character and mental abilities, but the problem of proofing one's writing in an environment of perpetual rush and lack of time.
But some readers will be confused by typos. I hope that for the benefit of future readers--reading even years from now--a corrected version can be posted. Specifically:
Paragraph No. 1, line 3: should read "the," not "he".
Paragraph No. 1, line 4: should read "tested," not "lifted".
Paragraph No. 1, line 7: delete "or".
Paragraph No. 5, line2: should read "worried," not "worry".
Paragraph No. 9, line 3: should read "now," not "no".
In the face of apparent opposition to editorial standards on the part of several contributors throughout this discussion, I want to explicitly endorse your comment and position.
I too experienced interference with my smooth reading of Dr Snyder's excellent piece because of the typos. Several times I had to pause, then go back over the text to establish his meaning.
It is ironic that I, too, faltered at para 1, line 4, where you suggest the text should have read "tested, not lifted". In fact, on reflection, I think we could accept "lifted", in the sense that restrictions had been removed.
Whatever Dr Snyder's intended meaning here, it is clear that there is unquestionably a role for editorial overview and proofreading pre-posting.
This whole subject has already been raised, at length, in responses to some of Dr Snyder's previous postings. Several of us have already offered our services, but nothing has come of it, because it would take an active intervention on Dr Snyder's part to institute some form of delegated formal editorial/proofing, and he has chosen so far not to respond. It is not a question of automated spellcheckers or similar, but of actual human editorial input, if Dr Snyder is in fact too busy to proof his own work. But is he too busy to do this? We do not know...
Meanwhile, a genuine thankyou for your time and caring here.
I subscribed so I could write thank you for the excellent analysis. 😉
Also, unlike some of the other comments, I don’t mind at all the couple typos, and prefer quicker publishing to more thorough proof reading if those are the choices.
I suspected immediately that this was a plot to extract a substantial payoff... these are mercenaries after all, isn’t it all about money particularly when the contract is up.
Dr Snyder makes clear here the all-important point that this was a conflict between two baddies, not between a goodie and a baddie.
In this light, I would appreciate a great deal more explication of just what those Russians in Rostov-on-Don were rejoicing about. Were we witnessing people even badder than the baddies? Inciters of even worse crimes than those already committed? Or were these people just poor benighted misinformed individuals, thinking Prigozhin was "for the people" as opposed to Putin's "elites"? Or something else again? Just what exactly did they think they were being liberated from?
Cecelia—I think you have a real insight here: life under Putin may be very boring… same old, same old…so, a desire to liven things up a bit? Enter Prigozhin.
There is much I want to say in reply to you, but also much the same things in reply to Keith Wheelock's post, which comes at similar issues from a different point of view.
So rather than repeating myself and saying the same thing twice, I hope you don't mind that I have rolled my reply to both of you into one post, which you can find under his initial post. Please be assured, no hierarchy is intended, just economy of time and conciseness for the benefit of other readers. Thankyou so much for your time in replying to me! It has opened my eyes to a perspective I had not previously considered.
It seemed to me when Wagner first showed up in R on Don citizens were not sure what to make of them. They stood back and watched from a distance. Or walked away as if they weren’t there. After a little while the soldiers didn’t do much so the street sweepers came along (a job is a job) and small boys and teens realized they had nothing to fear so they climbed all over the tank and took selfies and group shots. Everyone was having a good time. The few army guys didn’t feel in any danger, they are all on the same side, right? The pilots and crews of the copters and plane are being swept under the rug. The less said the better. Maybe their mothers will get a nice fur coat.
When the people realized they were their own fighters and everyone is being nice and genial they went along. Russians are pretty good at going along. And if the official line is different from the reality I’m sure they can embarrass that too.
My concern was whether Prigozhin had some sort of definite personal populist following, distinguishing him from the Putin regime in people's minds. But you seem to suggest things were much less overtly political than that. More a matter of people enjoying a spectacle as long as it seemed safe and they didn't have to think about it too much. This chimes with Cecilia Blair's sense of their delight in simply being liberated for a while from the "Putin bore".
So those people's reactions in Rostov-on-Don provided no basis for any potential popular revolt against Putin. What will it take for the Russians to move past their preference for just going along, I wonder?
I don’t think many Russian citizens are particularly political on purpose. There is no upside and some very obvious downsides. The elderly rural folks think Putin is wonderful. He does everything for them. He did increase pensions at the beginning of the SMO. And Russia has been hit with covid and inflation like every other country. Younger people, students and those that live in Moscow and St.Pete’s and larger centres are generally more aware but it seems more an intellectual exercise than a strong personal conviction. War is terrible but it’s far away and has little impact on their day-to-day lives. Many have family and friends in Ukraine, or they did, so they worry about the individual aunty or cousin but not Bucha or Mariupol or Kyiv. If Putin was to run cooking shows or cute puppies on television he’d probably get better viewership than he does with the propaganda garbage.
Remember the big rally Putin held in Moscow 4 months ago or so? It was freezing and everyone was bundled up and waving big flags. There was a rock band and a choir (in uniform) and a military band and a big buff soldier doing bad Russian rap, and Ukrainian kids saved from the SMO and don’t they look happy and grateful? Putin walked out to great cheers, spoke for a few minutes and then they all sang the national anthem (I think). This was midday on a Tuesday or Wednesday when most people would be at work but thousands packed the stands. Obligatory participation? Some probably loved it. Got them out of the office for a few hours. But all of it so staged and contrived. I suppose if this is what you do, regularly and often, it is just easier to go along because what would you do if you didn’t?
Any sort of popular revolt would first require an idea or a vision of something so totally at odds with their current existence...and where would they find that?
A KGB apparatchik and a common criminal sought common cause for several decades. Prigozhin was Putin’s ‘go to guy,’ initially with intrusion into the 2016 American presidential election and then with mercenary groups in Africa and elsewhere.
Putin was the brutal Russian czar. After his disastrous ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, he encouraged Prigozhin to expand his mercenary Wagner Group, and recruit tens of thousands of criminals as cannon fodder in military actions.
Billionaire Prigozhin relished his publicity for Wagner Group ‘successes’ in Bahlmut and elsewhere, while the Russia army and its leadership were broadly failing. Prigozhin became increasingly boisterous in his public criticisms of individual Russian leaders. Most recently he publicly criticized the Putin ‘special military operation’ venture.
The showdown between Putin and Prigozhin has significantly weakened Putin, who did not brutally squash an incipient military coup. Prigozhin may be a symbol of Mother Russian nationalism as his men seemed successful in contrast to the Russian military slugs.
It is far too early to determine what will happen to the Wagner Group, in Ukraine and elsewhere. Prigozhin may be sidelined or eliminated. Putin is no longer ‘8 feet tall,’ if ever he was.
As Churchill phrased it: “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But perhaps it is the end of the beginning.”
Personally, regarding Putin, I am deeply concerned what a cornered rat might do.
This cornered rat Putin showed that he is more interested in personally surviving than he is in retaliating. Run for it, cover up, change the subject--and later perhaps, punish someone weak, who cannot fight back.
I had to spend a few hours trying to analyse your excellent, thought-provoking comment here. Describing Putin as a KGB apparatchik is fine. No problems there. But do I understand you to be saying that Prigozhin, the common criminal with chefly leanings (or the chef with criminal propensities), has managed to rise to the status of extreme-right fascist ultra-nationalist hero in the Russian public eye?
If so, that would answer my question raised in an earlier post here as to just exactly what all those people in Rostov-on-Don were so pleased about. (I watched all the video footage and couldn’t quite connect the people's evidently innocent joyous celebration of Prigozhin and his men with any substantive political position.) Cecelia Blair suggested in reply to my query that those Russians were celebrating liberation from the regime of boring old Putin, and I believe there may be much truth in her insight. Yes, it seems life under Putin could have been/could still be phenomenally boring—an eternity of the same old, same old…
If that be true, we have an evident opening here for some well targeted psyops on the part of the Ukrainians, n'est-ce pas? The challenge: how to head off and circumvent the Prigozhinian extreme ultra-nationalist appeal in favour of the irresistible pull of a Ukrainian future embedded in EU and NATO membership as trendy, cool, prosperous, and totally with-it, to the extent that mainstream Russians might begin to envy such a polity.
But that leads us back to a consideration of Ukraine's own extreme-right nationalists (Azov) and how to integrate them into a modern liberal western democracy. And that in turn leads us back to Europe and the West's current struggles with the extreme far right.
So would it be permissible to view the deeper challenge here as one encompassing not just Russia, but also the US, the UK, the old English-speaking Commonwealth countries and the whole of the EU? Namely, the rise of the evil far right in the guise of a very "proper" patriotic nationalism which tends to instinctively appeal to, then deceive, the general population?
If this is the case, how might the EU/UK/US be better placed than Russia to deal with the challenge? It seems to me that Putin's old-style KGB authoritarian corruption (the apparatchik) will be less resilient in the long run than the West's somewhat chaotic liberal-democratic corruption, simply because the former is brittle and uncompromising and tends to break apart, whereas the West's preferred forms of corruption are more pliable, and lend themselves better to change and transmutation. Since in change lies the opportunity for intervention in favour of something better, can we say that our choice is change via revolutionary breakdown vs. change via small steps to something better?
I think these musings have immediate relevance to the emerging Russia/Ukraine situation insofar as they give us some pointers as to where best to devote our money and energies in attempts to support Ukraine.
For example, I can see no footage whatsoever in support for Prigozhin, in that what he actually represents is total anathema to the whole of the Western world.
It could be argued that what Prigozhin represents is even more anathema to us than what Putin stands for, since Putin is more clearly representative of an inadequate past which is now broken and whose end-point now ticks relentlessly closer to zero, whereas Prigozhin represents the seeds of an emphatically non-human, nihilistic future.
In this light, those sad citizens of Rostov-on-Don appear to be doomed in their misguided rejoicings.
Penelope When I learned that a Russian czar had his young son boiled to death, I realized that Russian history was a not a Goldilocks world. Catherine the Great killing her husband? The difficulty killing Rasputin who had such a mystical hold on Nicholas and Alexandra.
Prigozhin spent years in prison as a common criminal, then ran a successful hot dog stand before commencing his career as Putin’s ‘go to thug.’ From jail to becoming a billionaire with a mansion including helicopter port in St. Petersburg is an extraordinary transition.
I am not aware of how this relationship progressed. Putin started his political ascension in St. Petersburg before Yeltsin tapped him as successor in 1999.
I envisage Putin employing Prigozhin’s skills increasingly, as he learned to trust fewer and fewer people. [Hitler had such a person when he ascended to the prime ministership and, soon thereafter, had him killed.] Think of Roy Cohn and much later Michael Cohen and Stephen Miller in the Trump entourage==ready to fall on a hand grenade for their Mafioso boss.
I assume that Prigozhin has superior organizational skills as well as charisma. He was extremely useful to Putin for many years. He was being funded and protected by Putin. Then things began to go off track in Ukraine. Prigozhin became a one-person propaganda ministry for his Wagner Group.
In the West we heard more and more about the Wagner Group’s military successes contrasted with the Russian army’s failures. Prigozhin began personally attacking successive generals selected by Putin. When Putin agreed that Wagner Group soldiers had to sign contracts with the Russian army by July 1st, I sensed that Prigozhin went bonkers. [I discuss this in my comments earlier today].
Yes, we have that history. But you said, "Prigozhin may be a symbol of Mother Russian nationalism".
And my query was, to what extent might that be true of the general Russian public's perception of him? That is to say, do they regard Prigozhin as a popular national hero, distinct from Putin, or are the two still mixed up together in the public's mind as part of the one regime?
This matters, since I see Prigozhin as the one holding seeds of the future, not least because, although he enjoyed Putin's protection for a long time, he also built up huge independent wealth through his operations in Africa. He has a vast international base behind him which appears to be more solid than Putin's supposed support from allies in Asia. So he is rich and neither dependent on nor beholden to Putin.
In addition, Prigozhin appears to be able to operate more efficiently than Putin, perhaps because he is not encumbered like Putin is by a powerful atavistic religion.
So we have two immensely evil men, but I see Prigozhin as the greater threat to beneficial human futures. You, on the other hand, if I have understood you correctly, see Putin as the more immediate danger.
PENELOPE I REPLIED, BUT IT DIDN’T GO THROUGH. I don’t believe that Prigozhin has an independent power base. THE WAGNER GROUP WAS FINANCED THROUGH PUTIN—OVER $1 BILLION.
There has been a lot more reporting, going back years, of Prigozhin's private fortunes amassed in Africa. Not just gold, but oil and diamonds too. This article is just reporting the latest development.
As far as my reading has gone, I have not found any claims that Putin controls these funds.
Hence my argument that an independently wealthy Prigozhin poses a huge ongoing threat to Putin's regime, especially if a large part of the Russian public regards him as a national hero.
Penelope Prigo is in exile in a Putin satellite country. I would not assume that he has ready access to his private funds. Also, neither you nor I know the financing/finances of the WG operations in Africa. Since Putin stated that he had provided $1 billion for WG operations in Ukraine over the past year, and reports are that Prigo made $$$ from food contracts with the military, don’t be certain that Prigo has massive funds available—or freedom of action.
This is a very comprehensive and insightful presentation.
All the quibbling about the typos, did not distract from content.
I am a kindred spirit. In writing, when the subject is raw and your thoughts are spilling out, as a rumble of thunder, it should not be judges by typos.
A grammar and spell check would be great. However, Professor Snyder, do not let the thunder faint under scrutiny.
I would imagine, too, that he is VERY busy these days. He's being pulled in so many different directions at the same time that I'm surprised he even has the time to sit down and write such a thoughtful essay.
Interesting spectacle of one clever narcissist outflanking (Prigozhin) another (Putin) on the same turf, same war and same side). Perhaps Trump will meet the same fate in USA.
This piece answers a question that I've had since the beginning of the war. How is it in Russia's national interest to alienate the West and become subserviant to China, which is the only country that actually does pose a military or territorial threat to Russia, by invading Ukraine. Prof. Snyder's answer? It isn't. It only furthers the interests of Putin and the kleptocrats out to loot Russia and the national interest be damned. Once clearly stated the conclusion is so obvious that I'm embarrassed I didn't see it sooner. I've certainly had the good company the "experts" who blamed the war on NATO expansion, (which never made much sense; the US has been withdrawing forces from Europe since the first Gulf War, if not before) and other actions by the West implying some existential threat to Russia.
Very insightful analysis, as expected, and this is a zinger! : "it is important to specify a difference between Putin and Prigozhin's fascism and that of the 1930s. The two men are both very concerned with money, ....... They are oligarchical fascists -- a breed worth watching here in the US as well."
I picked up on that exact phrase too.
Really spot on.
I’ve appreciated this distinction also, but my phrasing, ‘neofascist predatory kleptocrat doesn’t roll off the tongue like ‘oligarchic fascist.’
So, the new ubermensch isn’t an ideal of racial purity, unlike Hitler’s but rather the most ruthless gangster most willing/able to con the masses.
Talk about sorting psychopaths to the top of the power structure. Yikes
The new breed of fascism uses state power to corner resources for personal use, rather than using resources to maximize national power. The world is learning this model leaves essential national capabilities like the military hollowed out, all the loot in oligarchs offshore bank accounts, and Russia now exposed to significant insecurity of its own making. Because their military is an illusion now broken.
"The world is learning this model leaves essential national capabilities like the military hollowed out, all the loot in oligarchs offshore bank accounts [. . .]." This is what I simply cannot understand. If you're going to fight a war you need to have a disciplined, well-trained, well-fed army. This cannot happen if money is being siphoned out of budgets. In fact, it's downright weird.
When all the people in power are thieves and liars, everyone hides their looting and the extent of it is not clear to anyone in particular…until there is a need to actually use it.
I'd never thought of it that way. That's a good insight.
But does anyone care that the oligarchs are thieves and liars? Putin knows, he enables all of the top guys. They have been at it for a very long time probably long before Putin came along. Now their children have learned the ropes and are now training their kids. The people, especially in Moscow and St Pete’s know that the grift is on and shrug, and the old folks back on the farm accept it as the way things have always been. I’m pretty sure that there are wannabe baby oligarchs pocketing rubles or favours all the way along and everyone goes along.
Good point.
My $0.02 - Yes, the attitude of much of the Russian population is acceptance and cynicism-this ubermensch is largely accepted as a new natural order - a modern survival of the fittest. But it is complicated. I think Russians generally do care, it is nationalist impulse that Putin and Prigo use to manipulate their extremist true believer cults that actually will carry out violence for them.
But the general population I think wants to see Russia succeed, to have opportunities and especially when it comes to security, they don’t want to be ruled by such incompetence they get trampled by foreign invasion.
But Russian society is really different than ours and there is general acceptance that whoever is in power will be corrupt, untrustworthy and authoritarian. And more to the point, there is general acceptance that it is futile to resist the authorities in any way publicly.
So when Prizo launched this mutiny, and was able to expose that his troops were able to easily take a large Russian city and make it hundreds of miles towards Moscow without facing significant resistance - he’s messaging that he’s the more powerful gangster to the people…and the Russian people seemed to not reject that or show ANY public displays of support for Putin.
The prospects for liberal revolution or reform remain pretty slim. The machine is primed to put another psychopath at the top unfortunately. But maybe cracks in Putin’s regime will bring out to the forefront much pent up dissent which might guide reforms in a better direction.
"The prospects for liberal revolution or reform remain pretty slim." Hard agree. I just can't see it. I greet any optimistic talk of liberalism in Russia with a raised eyebrow and silent stare.
Well said. Having done a tiny bit of forensic accounting in the past, it is very possible that the smoke and mirrors each actor puts in place leave all the actors in the dark as far as what exists on paper, and what little substance may back that up.
OK, but the Russians are ensconced on 18-20 % of Ukraine’s territory for a year now. If they could make off with most of that in a ceasefire, they could claim victory.
Purin apparently didn't know he had an understanding army or he thought Ukraine would fall or give in.
The Mafia/Voy are very disconnected from the citizens.
Was it indifference on his part in addition to hubris and no one able to communicate reality or at least bad news to him?
Reminded of the cabinet meeting where he only wanted them to perform the propaganda line. Wow, he we are 1-2 years later.
Atypical right off the bat, sigh " underperformed army" my autocorrect is very insistent.
This was the seed of destruction... it's a very unsuccessful strategy.
Potter, as soon as I started reading English translations of what is being posted on Russian Telegram Channels (from Feb. 24, 2022 to the present), this is something I came across over and over again: soldiers constantly complaining about having supplies stolen and sold on the black market; lack of food and water; commanders who don't command but instead loot; harsh punishment; constant drunkenness, und so weiter.
Rose, I only recently dl’d Telegram. Could you suggest a couple of channels? I have a translation app but I’m wandering about blindly. tia.
Hi, HL, I don't have a T'gram account myself, nor do I have a twitter account. But I do read other people's Twitters, and this is where I find Russian T'grams. One of the very best is Dmitri @WarTranslated (https://twitter.com/wartranslated). He is fluent in Russian and Ukrainian, and also translated videos that Russians and Ukrainians release. He regularly did translations of Prigozhin's videos. Dmitri is someone Professor Snyder has recommended, but I'd found him several months before that. If I find any other good ones, I'll send them to you.
Meanwhile, back in China...
Ed, watch this video Russian soldiers made yesterday, 28 June, that I just found at Dmitri's @ WarTranslated twitter account. It encapsulates everything we've been discussing in this thread in only 2m 24s. "On the zero line, we were not provided ammo, food or water." / "wounded were not evacuated, the dead are still rotting there." / "We refuse to obey orders for a number of aforementioned reasons." / We served for 3 months, never been paid." / And most interestingly: "The point of this address is that we'll send it to all our relatives." I'm wondering how they will do this. Will it be by T'gram? by text? Does the Russian government have the means to block texts? etc. If they are successful, and word starts to get around . . . https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1674370881332686851
That hollowed out military is doing pretty well against the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Disappointing.
Amen
Excellent analysis. And of course we expect nothing less from Timothy Snyder.
That's PROFESSOR Snyder, Nancy!
My man deserves every accolade. :)
This excellent analysis lays clear before us what is actually going on, as opposed to a lot of the breathless nonsense published elsewhere. Professor Snyder, you have become indispensable! I hope you are appreciated in all the high places where clear sightedness is necessary.
PS: Your class on Ukrainian history is essential learning for those who want to understand the background to current events, not to mention that you are a very talented teacher. Thank you!
I couldn't agree more! Like most Americans and western Europeans (I suspect), I was shamefully ignorant about the history of the Ukraine before taking Prof. Snyder's course. I encourage everyone to take it. Even our elected officials. No, especially them.
The course should be mandatory for elected officials, that would be helpful!.
A good course in American History ought to be mandatory too.
Yeah, 100%. We have legislators that don’t know or understand our own History. And somehow we expect them to understand another country in crisis?
🎯
Thank you, just thank you. I’ve been waiting for this, for the events to make sense. Major media are all still in a muddle.
The only quibble I have is the Nazis disguised their wholesale thieving as ideology. They were extremely concerned about money and made Auschwitz, for example, a production line to deliver all the belongings as well as some body parts of Jews to Germany. ‘Kanada’ was the meticulous processing line in Auschwitz. Of course the Nazis stole homes, farms, art work, businesses and all other real property too. They delivered baby shoes and prams to German mothers after they killed the Jewish ones with their babies. The important thing here is that this was systematic stealing, not an incidental ‘byproduct of a philosophy’.
"The origin of all wars...is the desire to steal; and so Voltaire quite rightly says: 'dans toutes les guerres il ne s'agit que de voler.' " ['In all wars it is only a question of stealing.'] Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena.
Putin and Prigozhin didn’t need to read Smedley Butler to know that war is a racket. In fact, they’ve updated for the 21st century.
Thanks Timothy, I was hoping to receive your analysis soon.
Small point: perhaps take a moment to proof read before posting? Some of the errors actually made your meaning unclear.
Yes, I’d gladly volunteer for the honorable job of proofreading this busy man’s writing 🙋♀️
Even better would be a spell checker in Substack, at very least on the dashboard.. I for one could really use one!
Spell checkers are usually the problem when misspelling 😄
YES
Spelling checks don't catch stuff if it's a word, such as "no" instead of "now," as happened here. I went through a phase of too quickly typing 'this" as "shit." fortunately I checked visually and caught it before my clients did... :)
Thanks for the snort-laugh this morning.
I forgive...I make a lot of typos myself, even after I correct. The ones above are not critical to the main points nor the sentences. Your brain corrects.
Prof. Snyder got this long piece out early and with a lot of obvious organized thinking involved.
Oh come on, Cheryl if it is that hazy for you than proofing won't help your ability to grasp the obvious.
RV maxima: I find your comment to be an argument ad hominem—attacking the person rather than addressing the issue. Very bad form. You come across as dismissive, arrogant and very male sexist.
Cheryl F. makes a clear point about the connection between typos and reading difficulties. She made it humbly and in good faith. At the very least, she merited a respectful, thoughtful, objective response from you which addressed, not her character and mental abilities, but the problem of proofing one's writing in an environment of perpetual rush and lack of time.
I owe Cherhl an apology .
Penelope, you can crawl off my ___ already.
Brilliant analysis.
But some readers will be confused by typos. I hope that for the benefit of future readers--reading even years from now--a corrected version can be posted. Specifically:
Paragraph No. 1, line 3: should read "the," not "he".
Paragraph No. 1, line 4: should read "tested," not "lifted".
Paragraph No. 1, line 7: delete "or".
Paragraph No. 5, line2: should read "worried," not "worry".
Paragraph No. 9, line 3: should read "now," not "no".
I guess some folks really flourish with the opportunity to correct others.
This commentary did not help the understanding of the topic... send it as a msg next time?
Disagree. Quality writing deserves quality editing. Thanks to Edward Opton for his time input.
I'd trade the minor edits needed for the quality thinking, any day. I'll bet your brain knew how to correct.
Oh my.
Edward Opton & Penelope Lane majoring in minors.
Thought leaders have thoughts.
Joel: it is possible to think well, write well and edit well. You posit false choices.
In the face of apparent opposition to editorial standards on the part of several contributors throughout this discussion, I want to explicitly endorse your comment and position.
I too experienced interference with my smooth reading of Dr Snyder's excellent piece because of the typos. Several times I had to pause, then go back over the text to establish his meaning.
It is ironic that I, too, faltered at para 1, line 4, where you suggest the text should have read "tested, not lifted". In fact, on reflection, I think we could accept "lifted", in the sense that restrictions had been removed.
Whatever Dr Snyder's intended meaning here, it is clear that there is unquestionably a role for editorial overview and proofreading pre-posting.
This whole subject has already been raised, at length, in responses to some of Dr Snyder's previous postings. Several of us have already offered our services, but nothing has come of it, because it would take an active intervention on Dr Snyder's part to institute some form of delegated formal editorial/proofing, and he has chosen so far not to respond. It is not a question of automated spellcheckers or similar, but of actual human editorial input, if Dr Snyder is in fact too busy to proof his own work. But is he too busy to do this? We do not know...
Meanwhile, a genuine thankyou for your time and caring here.
I subscribed so I could write thank you for the excellent analysis. 😉
Also, unlike some of the other comments, I don’t mind at all the couple typos, and prefer quicker publishing to more thorough proof reading if those are the choices.
I suspected immediately that this was a plot to extract a substantial payoff... these are mercenaries after all, isn’t it all about money particularly when the contract is up.
Dr Snyder makes clear here the all-important point that this was a conflict between two baddies, not between a goodie and a baddie.
In this light, I would appreciate a great deal more explication of just what those Russians in Rostov-on-Don were rejoicing about. Were we witnessing people even badder than the baddies? Inciters of even worse crimes than those already committed? Or were these people just poor benighted misinformed individuals, thinking Prigozhin was "for the people" as opposed to Putin's "elites"? Or something else again? Just what exactly did they think they were being liberated from?
Liberated temporarily from the bore, Putin.
Cecelia—I think you have a real insight here: life under Putin may be very boring… same old, same old…so, a desire to liven things up a bit? Enter Prigozhin.
There is much I want to say in reply to you, but also much the same things in reply to Keith Wheelock's post, which comes at similar issues from a different point of view.
So rather than repeating myself and saying the same thing twice, I hope you don't mind that I have rolled my reply to both of you into one post, which you can find under his initial post. Please be assured, no hierarchy is intended, just economy of time and conciseness for the benefit of other readers. Thankyou so much for your time in replying to me! It has opened my eyes to a perspective I had not previously considered.
It seemed to me when Wagner first showed up in R on Don citizens were not sure what to make of them. They stood back and watched from a distance. Or walked away as if they weren’t there. After a little while the soldiers didn’t do much so the street sweepers came along (a job is a job) and small boys and teens realized they had nothing to fear so they climbed all over the tank and took selfies and group shots. Everyone was having a good time. The few army guys didn’t feel in any danger, they are all on the same side, right? The pilots and crews of the copters and plane are being swept under the rug. The less said the better. Maybe their mothers will get a nice fur coat.
When the people realized they were their own fighters and everyone is being nice and genial they went along. Russians are pretty good at going along. And if the official line is different from the reality I’m sure they can embarrass that too.
HL Gazes: Thankyou, that has the ring of truth.
My concern was whether Prigozhin had some sort of definite personal populist following, distinguishing him from the Putin regime in people's minds. But you seem to suggest things were much less overtly political than that. More a matter of people enjoying a spectacle as long as it seemed safe and they didn't have to think about it too much. This chimes with Cecilia Blair's sense of their delight in simply being liberated for a while from the "Putin bore".
So those people's reactions in Rostov-on-Don provided no basis for any potential popular revolt against Putin. What will it take for the Russians to move past their preference for just going along, I wonder?
I don’t think many Russian citizens are particularly political on purpose. There is no upside and some very obvious downsides. The elderly rural folks think Putin is wonderful. He does everything for them. He did increase pensions at the beginning of the SMO. And Russia has been hit with covid and inflation like every other country. Younger people, students and those that live in Moscow and St.Pete’s and larger centres are generally more aware but it seems more an intellectual exercise than a strong personal conviction. War is terrible but it’s far away and has little impact on their day-to-day lives. Many have family and friends in Ukraine, or they did, so they worry about the individual aunty or cousin but not Bucha or Mariupol or Kyiv. If Putin was to run cooking shows or cute puppies on television he’d probably get better viewership than he does with the propaganda garbage.
Remember the big rally Putin held in Moscow 4 months ago or so? It was freezing and everyone was bundled up and waving big flags. There was a rock band and a choir (in uniform) and a military band and a big buff soldier doing bad Russian rap, and Ukrainian kids saved from the SMO and don’t they look happy and grateful? Putin walked out to great cheers, spoke for a few minutes and then they all sang the national anthem (I think). This was midday on a Tuesday or Wednesday when most people would be at work but thousands packed the stands. Obligatory participation? Some probably loved it. Got them out of the office for a few hours. But all of it so staged and contrived. I suppose if this is what you do, regularly and often, it is just easier to go along because what would you do if you didn’t?
Any sort of popular revolt would first require an idea or a vision of something so totally at odds with their current existence...and where would they find that?
My last sentence—embrace not embarrass, darn spellcheck!
Putin is potentially a ‘dead man walking’, says former CIA chief. 😎
—Q
A KGB apparatchik and a common criminal sought common cause for several decades. Prigozhin was Putin’s ‘go to guy,’ initially with intrusion into the 2016 American presidential election and then with mercenary groups in Africa and elsewhere.
Putin was the brutal Russian czar. After his disastrous ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, he encouraged Prigozhin to expand his mercenary Wagner Group, and recruit tens of thousands of criminals as cannon fodder in military actions.
Billionaire Prigozhin relished his publicity for Wagner Group ‘successes’ in Bahlmut and elsewhere, while the Russia army and its leadership were broadly failing. Prigozhin became increasingly boisterous in his public criticisms of individual Russian leaders. Most recently he publicly criticized the Putin ‘special military operation’ venture.
The showdown between Putin and Prigozhin has significantly weakened Putin, who did not brutally squash an incipient military coup. Prigozhin may be a symbol of Mother Russian nationalism as his men seemed successful in contrast to the Russian military slugs.
It is far too early to determine what will happen to the Wagner Group, in Ukraine and elsewhere. Prigozhin may be sidelined or eliminated. Putin is no longer ‘8 feet tall,’ if ever he was.
As Churchill phrased it: “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But perhaps it is the end of the beginning.”
Personally, regarding Putin, I am deeply concerned what a cornered rat might do.
This cornered rat Putin showed that he is more interested in personally surviving than he is in retaliating. Run for it, cover up, change the subject--and later perhaps, punish someone weak, who cannot fight back.
Hello Keith—
I had to spend a few hours trying to analyse your excellent, thought-provoking comment here. Describing Putin as a KGB apparatchik is fine. No problems there. But do I understand you to be saying that Prigozhin, the common criminal with chefly leanings (or the chef with criminal propensities), has managed to rise to the status of extreme-right fascist ultra-nationalist hero in the Russian public eye?
If so, that would answer my question raised in an earlier post here as to just exactly what all those people in Rostov-on-Don were so pleased about. (I watched all the video footage and couldn’t quite connect the people's evidently innocent joyous celebration of Prigozhin and his men with any substantive political position.) Cecelia Blair suggested in reply to my query that those Russians were celebrating liberation from the regime of boring old Putin, and I believe there may be much truth in her insight. Yes, it seems life under Putin could have been/could still be phenomenally boring—an eternity of the same old, same old…
If that be true, we have an evident opening here for some well targeted psyops on the part of the Ukrainians, n'est-ce pas? The challenge: how to head off and circumvent the Prigozhinian extreme ultra-nationalist appeal in favour of the irresistible pull of a Ukrainian future embedded in EU and NATO membership as trendy, cool, prosperous, and totally with-it, to the extent that mainstream Russians might begin to envy such a polity.
But that leads us back to a consideration of Ukraine's own extreme-right nationalists (Azov) and how to integrate them into a modern liberal western democracy. And that in turn leads us back to Europe and the West's current struggles with the extreme far right.
So would it be permissible to view the deeper challenge here as one encompassing not just Russia, but also the US, the UK, the old English-speaking Commonwealth countries and the whole of the EU? Namely, the rise of the evil far right in the guise of a very "proper" patriotic nationalism which tends to instinctively appeal to, then deceive, the general population?
If this is the case, how might the EU/UK/US be better placed than Russia to deal with the challenge? It seems to me that Putin's old-style KGB authoritarian corruption (the apparatchik) will be less resilient in the long run than the West's somewhat chaotic liberal-democratic corruption, simply because the former is brittle and uncompromising and tends to break apart, whereas the West's preferred forms of corruption are more pliable, and lend themselves better to change and transmutation. Since in change lies the opportunity for intervention in favour of something better, can we say that our choice is change via revolutionary breakdown vs. change via small steps to something better?
I think these musings have immediate relevance to the emerging Russia/Ukraine situation insofar as they give us some pointers as to where best to devote our money and energies in attempts to support Ukraine.
For example, I can see no footage whatsoever in support for Prigozhin, in that what he actually represents is total anathema to the whole of the Western world.
It could be argued that what Prigozhin represents is even more anathema to us than what Putin stands for, since Putin is more clearly representative of an inadequate past which is now broken and whose end-point now ticks relentlessly closer to zero, whereas Prigozhin represents the seeds of an emphatically non-human, nihilistic future.
In this light, those sad citizens of Rostov-on-Don appear to be doomed in their misguided rejoicings.
Penelope When I learned that a Russian czar had his young son boiled to death, I realized that Russian history was a not a Goldilocks world. Catherine the Great killing her husband? The difficulty killing Rasputin who had such a mystical hold on Nicholas and Alexandra.
Prigozhin spent years in prison as a common criminal, then ran a successful hot dog stand before commencing his career as Putin’s ‘go to thug.’ From jail to becoming a billionaire with a mansion including helicopter port in St. Petersburg is an extraordinary transition.
I am not aware of how this relationship progressed. Putin started his political ascension in St. Petersburg before Yeltsin tapped him as successor in 1999.
I envisage Putin employing Prigozhin’s skills increasingly, as he learned to trust fewer and fewer people. [Hitler had such a person when he ascended to the prime ministership and, soon thereafter, had him killed.] Think of Roy Cohn and much later Michael Cohen and Stephen Miller in the Trump entourage==ready to fall on a hand grenade for their Mafioso boss.
I assume that Prigozhin has superior organizational skills as well as charisma. He was extremely useful to Putin for many years. He was being funded and protected by Putin. Then things began to go off track in Ukraine. Prigozhin became a one-person propaganda ministry for his Wagner Group.
In the West we heard more and more about the Wagner Group’s military successes contrasted with the Russian army’s failures. Prigozhin began personally attacking successive generals selected by Putin. When Putin agreed that Wagner Group soldiers had to sign contracts with the Russian army by July 1st, I sensed that Prigozhin went bonkers. [I discuss this in my comments earlier today].
Putin takes ‘betrayal’ badly.
Yes, we have that history. But you said, "Prigozhin may be a symbol of Mother Russian nationalism".
And my query was, to what extent might that be true of the general Russian public's perception of him? That is to say, do they regard Prigozhin as a popular national hero, distinct from Putin, or are the two still mixed up together in the public's mind as part of the one regime?
This matters, since I see Prigozhin as the one holding seeds of the future, not least because, although he enjoyed Putin's protection for a long time, he also built up huge independent wealth through his operations in Africa. He has a vast international base behind him which appears to be more solid than Putin's supposed support from allies in Asia. So he is rich and neither dependent on nor beholden to Putin.
In addition, Prigozhin appears to be able to operate more efficiently than Putin, perhaps because he is not encumbered like Putin is by a powerful atavistic religion.
So we have two immensely evil men, but I see Prigozhin as the greater threat to beneficial human futures. You, on the other hand, if I have understood you correctly, see Putin as the more immediate danger.
PENELOPE I REPLIED, BUT IT DIDN’T GO THROUGH. I don’t believe that Prigozhin has an independent power base. THE WAGNER GROUP WAS FINANCED THROUGH PUTIN—OVER $1 BILLION.
But what about this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/27/us-sanctions-gold-companies-connected-wagner-group
There has been a lot more reporting, going back years, of Prigozhin's private fortunes amassed in Africa. Not just gold, but oil and diamonds too. This article is just reporting the latest development.
As far as my reading has gone, I have not found any claims that Putin controls these funds.
Hence my argument that an independently wealthy Prigozhin poses a huge ongoing threat to Putin's regime, especially if a large part of the Russian public regards him as a national hero.
Penelope Prigo is in exile in a Putin satellite country. I would not assume that he has ready access to his private funds. Also, neither you nor I know the financing/finances of the WG operations in Africa. Since Putin stated that he had provided $1 billion for WG operations in Ukraine over the past year, and reports are that Prigo made $$$ from food contracts with the military, don’t be certain that Prigo has massive funds available—or freedom of action.
Thank you, this is an excellent analysis of what has transpired this last week.
This is a very comprehensive and insightful presentation.
All the quibbling about the typos, did not distract from content.
I am a kindred spirit. In writing, when the subject is raw and your thoughts are spilling out, as a rumble of thunder, it should not be judges by typos.
A grammar and spell check would be great. However, Professor Snyder, do not let the thunder faint under scrutiny.
I would imagine, too, that he is VERY busy these days. He's being pulled in so many different directions at the same time that I'm surprised he even has the time to sit down and write such a thoughtful essay.
Interesting spectacle of one clever narcissist outflanking (Prigozhin) another (Putin) on the same turf, same war and same side). Perhaps Trump will meet the same fate in USA.
Their variety of narcissist is the psychopathic kind.
This piece answers a question that I've had since the beginning of the war. How is it in Russia's national interest to alienate the West and become subserviant to China, which is the only country that actually does pose a military or territorial threat to Russia, by invading Ukraine. Prof. Snyder's answer? It isn't. It only furthers the interests of Putin and the kleptocrats out to loot Russia and the national interest be damned. Once clearly stated the conclusion is so obvious that I'm embarrassed I didn't see it sooner. I've certainly had the good company the "experts" who blamed the war on NATO expansion, (which never made much sense; the US has been withdrawing forces from Europe since the first Gulf War, if not before) and other actions by the West implying some existential threat to Russia.