Hacker News Reader

There's another versin of what happened. Here's a post in telegram theorizing and referring to anonymous sources in the governmnet, suggesting it's a big fight between president administration management and FSB against MoD Shoigu+Gerasimov and Rostech corporation over the assets and state contracts of the latter. (post: https://t.me/volyamedia/703)

Apart from that it's entirely built on anonymous sources, this gives some plausible explanation, because if we consider just 2 sides (Prigozhin/Wagner vs Government), a genuine stand-down seems impossible. Leaving Prigozhin go away undermines the authority of Putin among those in top power.

But with 3 or 4 sides (Wagner, MoD & Rostech, PA & FSB, Putin & closest people) this explains their moves much better.

Although, if PA & FSB really did this, it's very reckless, putting the entire campaign at risk -- like quick frontline collapse.

So I admit the case with inner fight possible, though prorably the fake stand-down is more probable.

Reading this felt like reading the beginning of a cyberpunk novel.

(I do not mean to dismiss your post, only the strangeness of the situation).

The narrator of Burning Chrome lost his arm in a war, hang gliding at night over Kiev (as it was then). A dolphin in Johnny Mnemonic was trained for navy service.

The cyberpunks were a bit ahead of reality in these situations...

> Prigozhin was threatened with a tactical nuke, decided it wasn't worth it.

I have trouble believing there was a credible threat of nukes. Nuking your own territory is an unambiguous way to signal you've completely lost control of everything.

Wasn't that one of the extra headlines in Robocop? Something about South Africa—still under the apartheid regime at time of premier—were “forced” to nuke one of their own cities because of unrest.

Seems so: https://robocop.fandom.com/wiki/Pretoria

Only in the movies though. No country would risk a tactical nuke in their own territory, that's self-defeating.

>No country would risk a tactical nuke in their own territory, that's self-defeating.

No one had done that, but that's the general theory as to why South Africa developed nukes.

Possibly, but per a 1993 NY Times article on the program:

> Mr. de Klerk told Parliament that the program, one of the nuclear era's most closely guarded secrets, was begun in 1974 because of the apartheid Government's sense of isolation and its fear of Communist designs in the region.

Of course, that doesn't preclude internal use.

I still don't think they would have used it internally, but perhaps as a threat to neighboring countries. Really glad it was shutdown!

> No one had done that, but that’s the general theory as to why South Africa developed nukes.

No, it was for external use; that’s why when there was a clear internal existential threat, instead of using the weapons, they dismantled them and the program to prevent the successor regime from having them.

Blowing up the Kakhovka Dam is classified as an offense similar to blowing up a nuclear power plant.

It should be a pretty clear signal that they've lost control, as the damage the dam causes is larger than that of a small tactical nuke.

There is a lot of plausible deniability on the destruction of the dam. In the case of a nuke in your own territory that's more unequivocal

Not really.

It's pretty damn clear who blew up the dam, yet lots of people still claim that Russia didn't do it.

Wouldn't be hard to make the same people believe someone else nuked Russian territory.

Wasn't it "clear" who blew the pipelines too?

Totally different. The dam has a bunch of circumstantial evidence which together overwhelmingly indicate Russia. The same is not true of the pipeline, where there is hardly any such evidence.

The dam also has a pretty clear motive. While the only clear motive for the pipeline are the Americans. But there is a sever lack of evidence to back up any narrative indicating them.

You do realize Ukraine has bragged multiple times about hitting the dam, right? And that Russia has much more to lose over the flooding than Ukraine does?

> You do realize Ukraine has bragged multiple times about hitting the dam, right? And that Russia has much more to lose over the flooding than Ukraine does?

Russia has already admitted to blowing the dam, it was likely blown from the inside as the dam itself is super strong.

Russia did it to try and hinder the progress of the counter offensive.

No? Every source I see says “Ukraine says that Russia says that…”.

> No? Every source I see says “Ukraine says that Russia says that…”.

Yes?. Your sources are clearly terrible if that’s the case.

We have Russians on video saying they blew up the damn and Russian propagandist threatening to blow up the Kyiv dam.

Here are two Russians saying they mined are going to blow up the dam.

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/16660615320803614...

>> "We mined everything on Kakhovka HPP. So, they'll f*king blow it up and will wash away Ukrainian Armed Forces on the other side" - a Russian says. The video was published on 10 December, 2022.

https://twitter.com/den_kazansky/status/1666003021925347328

>> Russian soldier Yegor Guzenko, who is fighting in the Kherson region, admitted that Russia blew up the dam in Nova Kakhovka to stop Ukrainian army He also said that the Russian army should also blow up other dams on the Dnieper

Your sources are fake and ridiculous. This has been addressed by better writers than me, so I will go ahead and quote them here:

>Not to be blunt, but this is an egregiously bad bit of trickery and it’s difficult to believe that people are falling for it. To begin with, this is an interview with a Ukrainian blogger and youtuber who goes by the screen name “Edgar Myrotvorets” - interestingly naming himself after the infamous Ukrainian kill list. The “Russian soldier” who he is interviewing is allegedly a gentleman named Yegor Guzenko. Yegor seems to be an interesting fellow - he pops up on social media periodically largely to confess to stereotyped Russian war crimes, like kidnapping civilians and executing Ukrainian prisoners, and of course blowing up dams.

>Essentially, we are being asked to believe that there is a Russian soldier out there who is giving interviews to Ukrainian media in which he confesses to all of Russia’s nefarious activities, and then goes about his duties without being stopped or punished. It should be pretty obvious that Yegor is actually Yehor, and is not a Russian soldier at all but a Ukrainian impersonator - funnily enough, Yegor also has a beard even though the Russian MOD has been cracking down on facial hair.

So the errors in your reply are numerous. First: The person on the right side is a UKRAINIAN blogger, who's channel can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/@edgar_ua

The rest are left as an exercise to the reader.

> Your sources are fake and ridiculous. This has been addressed by better writers than me, so I will go ahead and quote them here:

Your sources are non existent why don’t you link to these people writing these opinions if they are so strong?.

> The rest are left as an exercise to the reader.

And by the rest you mean all of it right cause you don’t have a single source or evidence of anything.

Here’s another source.

>https://amp.smh.com.au/world/europe/images-emerge-of-car-lad...

Your biggest mistake is to think that the Russians don’t want to appear as monsters.

They are more than happy to, so much so that when they commit war crimes like blowing up the dam.

They cheer it on and want their military to blow up even more dams.

Just like when they downed MH17 Russians were cheering on this destruction until they learnt about the disgust from the international community.

Then the switch flipped and people like yourself went into overdrive to try and deny more Russian war crimes.

Yes, because the Russian soldier who claims to have executed prisoners is going to be chummy enough with Ukrainian media to go and have a 30 minute live-streamed video where it’s quite apparent that they’re friends. And he wouldn’t immediately catch a bullet from the SBU for leaking secrets.

Oh, and here’s another question. The blogger says “our guys” - as in, the Russians. Why would a Ukrainian blogger be calling Russian soldiers “our guys”?

Was he trying to represent himself as a Russian news source? This would be rather bizarre, as he posted this on his YouTube site that professes to be Ukrainian.

The point being, the whole thing is a blatant fake, and people like you double down on their jingoistic rhetoric because they can’t imaging being fooled by such half-witted propaganda.

> The point being, the whole thing is a blatant fake, and people like you double down on their jingoistic rhetoric because they can’t imaging being fooled by such half-witted propaganda.

Speaking of propaganda.

Who's your source?, the words that you quote are useless without an actual person to put them too.

Theres also now plenty of news articles that have multiple bits of evidence that you have conveniently just left out.

You have a lot to type for someone without a single source.

Blowing up dams is a pretty standard thing whatever side is on defense to do. Ukraine did it earlier in this war, Russia did it (much smaller dam) after Kakhovka, the Netherlands has done it, Belgium has done it. Blowing up nuclear power plants is way less common.

Blowing up a nuclear power plant is about two big, scary, 'DO NOT CROSS EXCEPT IN EXISTENTIAL EMERGENCY' red lines away from blowing up a nuclear bomb.

A tactical nuclear bomb isn't nearly as damaging as blowing up a nuclear reactor, and the fallout and destruction will be much smaller.

The problem with tactical nuclear weapons is that it crosses a line that other people will cross right back at you.

Whereas covering a country in Agent Orange or depleted uranium, or radiactive crap from an entombed reactor is, like, a Tuesday when it comes to industrialized warfare.

"Prigozhin didn't get the support he expected from the military, so he was was motivated to settle, but had enough support to threaten Moscow, so Putin was motivated to settle. Outcomes - a hardliner in charge of the Russian military, Putin quietly retires in a year or two, hands over reigns without the violence"

Mostly agree, except to the conclusion. I do not think Putin is ready to hand over the power and he rather rules till he dies (one way or the other).

And of course it is far from over, because whoever wins, it ain't people who have much respect for human rights or lifes.

But I cannot imagine both being alive in russia.

I like your first thought. That seems realistically possible.

I'm not sure your second is realistic. I don't think there's any scenario where at least one of Putin and Prigozhin don't die. If Prigozhin "settles", he will be shortly assassinated. (Watch out for windows!) Putin might be able to quietly retire, but I think the odds are against that one, too.

I would think death would be preferable to retirement for Putin. To give up his current position would simply be making him a really tempting bargaining chip for the next generation at the top, to live in unimaginable anxiety that you will be offered up to any of the thousands of enemies you've created over the past 20 years of strongman rule.

What could he possibly trade to the next ruler to maintain leverage over them and indefinitely guarantee his safety? From the West, the ICC, the Islamists, the Chechens, the Ukrainians, the Syrians? All the mafia bosses and oligarchs that he's subjugated inside of Russia? He literally has to stay in power simply to be able to sleep at night.

And it's not just him: his family, his friends, his legacy is all at risk. To give up power is to give up all his leverage to ever control the safety of anyone or anything he has ever cared about. There's no safe retirement plan for a person who has lived the life he has.

Subjugated? Russia is literally a modern day feudal state. The oligarchs are the regime's vassals. They get a slice of the country's resources which they export and share the profits with the regime/president. Or they get government contracts.

Yes, but there were a lot of vassals who were not on board with the new top-down direction in the early 2000s. Putin made a lot of enemies with vassals that didn't want to play ball with the new rules, Khodorkovsky being a notable example. There's surely plenty of others that weren't steamrolled as badly and still retain the ability to strike back at him if he's no longer the all-important boss of Russia.

That's the post-Soviet oligarchs who thought Russia had become a free market economy didn't get that they have to bow to the new czar. Of course, there wasn't a flip the switch moment from state A to B. It all became increasingly authoritarian during Putin's several mandates. He put his allies in key positions, favorised loyal interest groups, locked up or otherwise liquidated potential adversaries. It's really a mafia state, just like the late sen. Jonh McCaine said, but since they have wide popular support, I think we can safely call it feudalism.

I've read an article and they've identified somewhere after April 2008 when the Bucharest NATO Summit (Putin was also present) took place and before August 2008, when the Russian invasion of Georgia began as the moment Putin ultimately decided to invade a nearby state in order to prevent NATO expansion into post-Soviet states. That's his red line, that's why he also invaded Ukraine. He still views these countries as part of the USSR/Russian world, just like Belarus where he currently tries a Crimean-style Anschluss. The reality is quite a bit different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

Yeah, I rather doubt he is using a public Telegram channel to coordinate his troops.

Prigozhin could be threatened with a tactical nuke, in theory.

But the far cheaper and easier version is that he was threatened with the fates of his Russian wife and children.

Prigozhin's going to get poisoned / assassinated within 3 months. Maybe within 2 weeks. He's crazy if he think's he'll survive to see 2024 without a successful rebellion. He's a dead man walking, and I don't understand what could possibly be in the deal that could convince him otherwise

Prigozhin's going to get poisoned / assassinated within 3 months.

I think that depends on how we got here. One theory could be that another country or set of countries paid him to turn against Russia and promised he could live wherever he wants with a nice stash of cash should he accomplish some specific tasks. The reason I think this could be the case is that mercs are generally only faithful to money and anything that gives them more power. I'm sure he realized he did not have a future of money or power in Russia so it might not have taken that much to turn him.

Exactly. This looks like classic extortion: if you don't pay me more, I will stop fighting, or do a 180.

But he's not a merc. He's a billionaire who funded a merc company because he likes that shit. He has money. He doesn't have the power he probably wanted to have. But going into exile is not going to do his power craving any good. If he aimed at toppling the minister of defence or even the president, how on earth would he be satisfied with getting some money or some contract by Belarus or some other country?

Prigozhin was threatened with a tactical nuke, decided it wasn't worth it.

Woah there. This just doesn't parse.