Further thoughts on the lessons of the Prigozhin armed rebellion

Russia is clearly the flavor of the day as regards punditry: in mainstream, in alternative news and in social media. The Prigozhin affair this past weekend has provided a wealth of material for speculation, which is the stock in trade of talking heads. The preponderant share of what we see and hear is contributed by Russia’s detractors and enemies, though Russia’s cheerleaders also have found their voice. I do my best to stay outside these stereotypical camps and to offer an independent point of view.

I open today’s essay with a brief observation on what others have been saying. I will not clutter my text with links, since every able-bodied reader can easily find the original pieces in Google Search by entering author and title or publisher.

Then I will move on to the fresh material that I gathered from last night’s edition of the Vladimir Solovyov talk show.  Here my providing the link is essential for anyone wanting to go to the source:

https://smotrim.ru/video/2639845?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=main2-theme

With respect to my use of Solovyov, the other day I received a query via the Comments function of this site asking why I do not present material from other Russian talk shows, and, in particular, from “The Meeting Place” (Место встречи) of the commercial television station NTV. There are a couple of reasons for this. The least contentious is that only programs on Russian state television can be viewed anywhere in the world thanks to the smotrim.ru website.  NTV is widely distributed within Russia, but is inaccessible here in Belgium, where I am working most of the time. I imagine it is inaccessible in the world generally.  However, the decisive argument for me is that whatever you think of the host and his occasionally rude and overbearing behavior towards panelists, his guests are among the most authoritative political, social and artistic personalities in the country, making his program incontournable, as the French say.

That this is so was demonstrated persuasively in two successive articles just published by Max Seddon in The Financial Times. His “Traitors must be shot” and “Russia and its propagandists” both drew heavily on what was said in the Sunday night broadcast of the Solovyov show. Given that the first of these articles appeared well after my essay “Dry Residue,” I may be flattered that Seddon picked up my idea of featuring two key panelists, Lt General Andrei Gurulyov and RT editor in chief Margarita Simonyan, to characterize the divided opinions in Russia over the mutiny and the terms of its settlement. This use of material from his program occurred even though the Financial Times routinely denounces Solovyov as a pro-war propagandist for the Putin regime.

I mention in passing that I have written a letter to the Editor at FT demanding an apology from Seddon over his Plagiarism Lite of the substance of my published and copyrighted essay and also pointing to the violation of intellectual property rights of Evening with Vladimir Solovyov in a way they would never dare to do had the broadcaster been CNN or Euronews: Gurulyov and Simonyan were quoted without mention of the show as the source. Quite apart from the scurrilous descriptions Seddon assigns to identify these speakers, what we have here is blatant journalistic malpractice.

                                                                    *****

A magisterial critique of mutiny articles and television appearances by well known Russia-haters was published a couple of days ago on thegrayzone.com by Max Blumenthal: “The real casualties of Russia’s civil war’: the Beltway expert class.” Here Blumenthal presents the rabid nonsense that was published as articles or tweets, or spoken on television over the weekend by Anne Applebaum, Michael McFaul, Kurt Volker, and Christo Grozev (Bellingcat), among others. 

I am obliged to add a word about Applebaum that would not necessarily be obvious to readers of Blumenthal’s critique of her essay and television appearances. Namely, her diligence in pursuit of her propagandistic Neocon objectives should not be underestimated, nor should her intellectual gifts.  I recall with some regret the public televised debate about Putin’s Russia that Applebaum had with Steve Cohen at a Canadian university. This took place about three years ago, when I was in regular correspondence with Cohen and took the time to watch his debate.  It was a debacle. Applebaum came very well prepared to argue her case. Cohen quite obviously had done nothing to prepare, had not trained with sparring partners. He relied instead on spontaneity, on his superior intellect and broad knowledge.  In the ensuing exchange on stage, Applebaum wiped the floor with Cohen, whose thinking and argumentation were outdated. The moral of the story is: never to be dismissive of an enemy.

Blumenthal does not speak about Anatol Lieven, and so I add my two cents here.

Lieven enjoys high ratings in Liberal circles for being a supposedly fair-minded and erudite commentator, as well as having a lot of life experience in war zones. Among his present calling cards is as a top officer in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He is the principal adviser on Russian matters to the think tank’s president Andrew Bacevich, who is clueless.

My repeated finding on Lieven is that he is the consummate chameleon, playing to both sides on the Russian issue, while raking in the chips in terms of honorary and paid positions, speaking engagements and the like.

Less than a week ago, even I was taken in by an article authored by Lieven denouncing the “cancel Russia” movement.  However, over this past weekend Lieven shed all pretence at respectability. This sad fact emerges from his latest article dealing with the Prigozhin adventure:  “Putin: Disastrous but indispensable for the system he created?” in the online journal Responsible Statecraft?” In short, Anatol Lieven is just one more purveyor of State Department snake oil.

                                                                       *****

The edition of the Solovyov talk show last night was notable for a video excerpts he put on screen from President Putin’s address to military commanders earlier in the day and also for a resume of President Lukashenko’s televised address to his nation provided by a political analyst in Minsk. And then there were the remarks of two panelists on the present situation post-mutiny that I will summarize below, because they point to the seriousness of political commentary on Russian state television.

As for Putin, he was addressing precisely the military commanders who had personally implemented measures to stop Prigozhin’s march on Moscow.  Said Putin, “had you not stopped the mutiny on its path, there would have been chaos in the country that our enemy would take advantage of, as he is doing even now, with the result of our possibly losing all that we have achieved so far in the SMO.”

A panelist on this morning’s Sixty Minutes news and discussion program explained that these were the officers who assembled troops, tanks and other heavy equipment that they put in the way of the force advancing on Moscow. Prigozhin and his confederates saw this and understood that they faced a bloody fight. That led them to enter into talks with Lukashenko on a peaceful settlement.

Here below I offer the gist of what Putin told these men:

 We always had great respect for the Wagner forces. They showed courage on the battlefield.  Our soldiers and officers in the regular army also showed heroism and self-sacrifice on the field of battle. But they have worked with less effect. And so those who were in the Wagner Group had the respect of our country.

The upkeep of the Wagner Group was fully paid by the state, by the Ministry of Defense, from the state budget. Just from May 2022 to May 2023, the state paid to Wagner for upkeep and motivation rewards 86 billion 262 million rubles (circa 1 billion euros), of which 70 billion was cash for upkeep and 15 billion was motivation rewards. In addition the owner of the company Konkord [part of the Wagner Group] via Vointorg received 80 billion rubles to provide food provisions to the Army.  I hope that in the course of this work no one stole anything or, shall we say, didn’t steal much.  We will definitely look into this.

Solovyov reminded the audience that the column of Wagner troops was advancing very quickly through civilian territory and was heavily armed.  However, the Rosgvardia forces did not tremble. They stood their ground. The head of the Emergencies Ministry phoned them and said he had 400 men to contribute to the stand against Wagner. 

We were now shown a video of the head of Rosgvardia Army General  Zolotov speaking to reporters

 We had to consolidate otherwise they would pass like a knife through butter. They could have reached the outskirts of Moscow but they could not take Moscow.

Solovyov’s conclusion:  Rosgvardia does not yet have its own heavy military equipment or aircraft or air defense systems. But that will now all change.

Solovyov then turned the microphone over the Duma member and Lt. General in retirement Andrei Gurulyov, the very same Gurulyov whom I cited in my article Dry Residue and whom Max Seddon also quoted in his FT article.  This time his temper cooled, and Gurulyov was no longer calling for Prigozhin to be meted out the traditional bullet to the head.

Andrei Gurulyov:

We are just at the start of the long road to understanding what happened. But I want to say the following:

When people say we should prohibit Private Military Companies, I remind them that in the real world today there is hybrid war. Part of hybrid war is such Private Military Companies. They should operate not only in Ukraine but on any spot of the globe in the interests of the state. This should be regulated but units like the Wagner Group are very much needed.

I agree with what you said about those who came to stop the advancing Wagner forces.  Among those whom Putin met with today was the head of the Frunze military academy, who has fought in all our wars, and he sent people from his officer school to help stop Prigozhin. The police also joined in. They all were there to ensure that no one would approach the Kremlin and that we would not have a coup d’etat.

I want to point out that the Wagner Group was also very active on the Information front. Everyone knows they have their own troll factory.  They have worked to influence public opinion. We have to give this our attention right now while their military units are being disbanded.

Thirdly, note that the Wagner Group had many former officers, who are well trained. It is very desirable that they now sign up with the ministry of Defense. We need them in areas under direct Ukrainian attack.

As for defense of Moscow, we have a unit there with heavy equipment, well prepared to block any assault on the city. Such a force always must be in place and ready, regardless of any war. Soviet history taught us that.

Another point – we have shortage of lower officer ranks.  Yes, sergeants should be moved up into officers, but for that they must get additional professional training. 3 month courses.

Lastly, per Lukashenko in speech today we have to ensure that 100% of the population is behind the war effort. There are always some who are quiet resisters. As Lukashenko said, in moments like the mutiny the cockroaches who have been hiding in the woodwork are flushed out.

Last night the role of counterpoint to Gurulyov, the hardliner, that on Sunday night had been played by Margarita Simonyan, was assumed by the head of Mosfilm and popular film director Karen Shakhnazarov, whom I have quoted on these pages several times.

Karen Shakhnazarov

 A mutiny is by its nature is always disorderly. If it is well planned and then succeeds, it goes by a different name.  I personally was involved in a mutiny, so to speak. I got arrested in the street during  the August 1991 coup against Gorbachev. It was disorganized, but it had consequences. It led to the breakup of the USSR.

 This mutiny worked against our national interests. It  persuaded our enemies that we are weak. See the reaction of Chancellor Scholz. It raised doubts about us among our friends.  So whatever we say about this demarche now, it caused great damage.  The president is now trying to compensate and strengthen things.

Four weeks, maybe six weeks ago I spoke out on this program when this fellow whom I will not name was in full public dispute with the Minister of Defense.  I said the Government had to do something about this.  The whole country saw it.  But I did not see any reaction. I am uncertain that my words reached the President.   I think his subordinates did not report this properly to Vladimir Vladimirovich.

This episode did harm to our stability.  It also removed from the front a very much needed contingent of troops.

I understand that the President met today precisely with soldiers. That was correct.   The President has a feel for these things.  After all, if 10,000 troops went along with the mutiny, then maybe other soldiers and officers could be won over.  Putin demonstrated today his relations with the Army.

What I don’t agree with in the President’s actions is  his comparison of this mutiny with events of 1917. This was not like February 1917. At that time Russian society, Russian elites completely lost their trust in the top authorities. That’s how it was.   This time the situation was entirely different.  Trust of society to the President was enormous. It has even grown. There is trust in the Army.   The war is going on and who likes it?  But its objectives are known to the people, unlike the situation back in 1917. This affair with Wagner shows that the people are behind the President. . Even those who are not especially loyal understand the objectives.   Our people fully understand that we must not allow a mutiny to cause chaos. We have that in our genes, unlike the people of the Russian Empire in 1917. Thank God!

I have read what they are saying in the West.  Liz Truss is commenting again.  But you have to be a complete idiot not to understand a very simple thing: what it would mean if such chaos, if a civil war broke out in a country like Russia with its nuclear arms. And it is not those whom they want who would come to power, quite the contrary. Only the most radical, nuclear-minded people would take over. They wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. They would send the Poseidon to where it should go. And the Sarmat…[Russia’s heaviest and most advanced strategic nuclear missile].  Maybe this mutiny will clear minds somewhere about the danger. You have to be a complete idiot not to see this could be a catastrophe for the whole world.   And so, even those here who may not be particularly loyal have to understand that the President is uniting us.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023