Tasseography

Reading the tea leaves on what is going on in Russia is pretty hard right about now. I materially agree with George Friedman’s interpretation of events:

What we must think through now, though, is to what extent the Prigozhin debacle will destabilize the Russian government, weaken Putin or affect the war in Ukraine. Putin’s status is at the center of it all. If this was indeed a coup attempt, it never seriously threatened the Kremlin. Prigozhin’s issues with elements of the central government were well known. Why, then, would Putin be weakened by a putsch from a known malcontent that went nowhere? And what does being weakened even mean? Does it mean that department heads, and particularly the General Staff, would disregard his orders? Does it mean he no longer has a job?

In a political sense, weakened might mean that Putin would no longer be able to make executive decisions or eliminate bureaucrats and generals. This would be a serious development. Russia is at war, and it needs an effective command structure. If Putin were weakened, then the command structure would break down, which would also mean there would be no supreme commander. In that scenario, it is unlikely Putin would be weakened; he would be replaced. The question is who would replace him? Prigozhin might have been angling for the job, but he ultimately capitulated to a different Putin puppet, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. Someone unknown to me might emerge, of course, but short of an heir apparent I don’t know what it means for Putin to be weakened. And even if I did, I don’t know why a coup attempt broken in less than a day should weaken him.

The more serious question concerns what the Wagner Group was doing on the battlefield in the first place. Private military contracting is common enough, but Wagner’s role in Russia was fairly unique in that it took on responsibilities usually reserved more for conventional forces than for paramilitary groups, charged as it was with executing some of the war’s most important battles. As its role evolved, Prigozhin began to pursue his own strategy outside the chain of command of the military, sometimes openly ridiculing his rivals, who would cut off his supplies in kind. Two armies thus tried – and have so far failed – to fight a common enemy.

He goes on to point out that the real problem that Putin has is that enabled the Wagner Group in the first place with which I agree completely.

Meanwhile at Asia Times James Davis remarks on something I have been pointing out for some time:

The Wagner Group mutiny over this weekend elicited a storm of editorial and social media comments to the effect that the Russian president might be deposed after all. After Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin took the deal proposed by Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, called off his march on Moscow and decamped to Moscow’s closest ally, Putin was still in place.

But the political sands have shifted toward Russia’s ultra-nationalist right, raising grave strategic risks including a higher probability of the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

Russia has been shifting towards a nasty form of nationalism since Maidan, which Nuland and her colleagues saw as a prelude to the overthrow of Putin. The American-sponsored coup against the elected president Viktor Yanukovych threatened Russia’s tenure in Crimea, home of its Black Sea fleet, and prompted Russia’s annexation of the peninsula, which has been Russian territory since the rule of Catherine the Great.

Prigozhin reflects a growing consensus in the Russian armed forces and important parts of civil society that Putin has been a weakling in the face of Western designs against Russia. This consensus includes Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov, who Putin prevailed upon to send troops to defend Moscow against Prigozhin’s mutinous march on the capital. Kadyrov and Prigozhin have been allies against Putin’s military leadership, demanding more aggressive and decisive action in Ukraine from a perceived as cautious Kremlin.

There is no liberal opposition to speak of in Russia. That is a fantasy. Regime change in Russia is the very last thing we should want—it would mean a much more truculent and Russian nationalist posture for them.

All of that is contrary to the party line being promoted by the Biden Administration. Is what they’re saying based on some intelligence they’re not sharing with us, political happy talk, or wishful thinking?