Yeah this is all an internal power game. Shoigu is a laughingstock, and everyone is angling to be next-in-line by advertising what they've actually accomplished (and presumably, for the presidency after Putin retires).

> after Putin retires

He ain't retiring. The only way he is leaving the Kremlin is in a casket.

I'm not sure why everyone assumes this. It seems like he'd have much more ability to shape the future of Russia and protect those close to him if he chooses a successor and oversees the succession. He could also ensure better conditions for himself (i.e. not being executed) in case he ends up being unable to continue ruling due to sickness/old age.

Do we have any examples of this actually happening in the Soviet times until now? He's going to be worried about the groomed successor doing him in earlier than natural death. That paranoia is what keeps them from doing what you suggest.

The odds of a full on anti-Putinist purge seem a lot higher with a disorderly succession compared to one that Putin orchestrates himself. There are risks either way of course, but it doesn't seem like such an obvious choice for him as many imply.

Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and Khrushchev all died peacefully.

Yes, but did they groom a successor? Yeltsin did (Putin). Krushchev - not sure, I think there was a bit of a tussle. Gorbachev was probably too young to be thinking about a successsor - and he was essentially shutting down the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev was overthrown. Gorbachev was basically too. After the hardliners’ coup attempt he was basically a lame duck.

Yeah I think casual observers miss the fundamental political apathy of most Russians.

Overthrown leaders don't have a power base; mobs aren't going to turn out to return a deposed leader to power. Once they are irrelevant, they're going to stay that way, and everyone knows it.

Lenin himself died of natural causes after leaving power.

Lenin isn't a good example. He had a stroke while still in power and never effectively regained it. He was reduced to reading the newspaper in his wheelchair and crying about developments, while being unable to effect real change any more. He arguably did not want Stalin as his successor, but was powerless to prevent it by then.

If Putin were interested in either ruling from the shadows or appointing a successor then he had his chance with Medvedev. The fact that he ousted Medvedev to re-assert himself reveals that prefers to be seen as the one in charge.

Yes, but by the same token, won't he want to maximize the chances of an ideologically aligned successor so his influence continues beyond death? He doesn't strike me as someone who'd be content to let the chips fall where they may once he's gone.

> I'm not sure why everyone assumes this.

Because propaganda has convinced every American that they know Putin personally, and understand his internal thoughts and drives. Those thoughts and drives are to cause evil everywhere, and a bottomless ego that can only be satisfied by conquering the world. It's not really a subtle caricature.

Nice try, Kremlin.

> I'm not sure why everyone assumes...

Most folks "know" far more about succession in authoritarian regimes from heroic fiction, TVTropes, and the Evil Overlord list than they do from actual history.

Implied. There are many ways to “retire” in Russia.

I'm still betting on a premature death, but never say never. Castro retired.

Castro was sick to the point of being unable to function, right?

That's my understanding. I think Putin would probably get killed if he found himself similarly weakened, but that's not certain. Assuming he's not killed, he'll get old and weak too eventually.

That didn't stop Biden!

Or his opponent who couldn't run up a flight of stairs without soiling his depends. Fucking ancient bastards.

> I'm still betting on a premature death

Mr Putin is 70 years old, and reports of his health issues are circulating. So I think that it's too late for "premature" death.

I'm talking about homicide. An assassination or summary execution, like Ceaușescu.

A number of dictators ending up being dethroned (without a full-blown civil war): Robert Mugabe (already in his 90s though), Suharto, Pol Pot, Pinochet, a bunch of others whose names escape me at the moment.

I'd be interesting to gather some data on this, but I suspect it's more common that casual perception might indicate.

One possible reason for the mysterious Russian Modified Gravity that causes people to fall to their deaths might be that Putin's position is not as secure as he might like us to think. He doesn't even need to be assassinated: once he's no longer in a position to order around force, what is he going to do? Some of the above lived for decades after being deposed.

I guess I should say... after Putin is gone, one way or another. He's 70, it's not going to be forever.

He could potentially still hold power for decades to come, into his 90s. So forever? No, obviously not. But we might have to look at him for a long time.

Well, life expectancy for Russian males is below 70 - of course Putin has the best medical care, but I doubt steroids etc. can keep him for too long.

Average life expectancy in Zimbabwe is about 62. Mugabe lived to be 95.

Yep, Prigozhin is a bullshitter on the level of Elon Musk.

The guy spent years publicly denying the existence of the Wagner group, then opened a patriotic co-working space literally called The Wagner Group Centre. (meanwhile, the group itself is still illegal under Russian law)

I'm not saying he didn't interfere in the elections, but whatever he says is no proof either way.

Hate Musk all you want, but comparing him to war criminal? Come on!

This kind of comments are both both help Russian gangsters and downplay actual war crimes that happen in Ukraine. Your petty hatred toward US billionare have nothing to do with what happening to millions of people suffering because of war.

This guy is known for saying ridiculous and highly sarcastic things. They also left out key parts of this specific statement:

> My answer will be delicate, sophisticated, and forgive me - ambiguous. We have interfered, are interfering and will continue to interfere. Carefully, precisely, surgically and in our own way. During our pinpoint operations, we will remove both kidneys and the liver at once.

This is pretty much non-news coming from this guy. He said it to rile up the reporter. And the US media is eating up like a bunch of fools.

> And the US media is eating up like a bunch of fools.

I am truly curious whether they are genuinely this naive.

A lot of people seem to be responding as per normal to this obvious troll, and a fearful public is an easier to manage public. Public relations doesn't come cheap, so any external help is (or should be) good for the public budget.

Well it validates those in the US media that have been advancing the interference theory

Didn't the US intelligence services say they had clear evidence he was involved in exactly what he's confessing to, several years ago?

    mostly from coverage that I've seen at UnderstandingWar.org

Fair warning, that site is a blog run by a neocon think tank, headed by the King NeoCon himself Bill Kristol. This is the weapons of mass destruction crew, nothing they say should never be taken seriously.

On the contrary - for succinct day-by-day, "play-by-play" commentary on the conflict, they are quite professional (and extremely guarded in their statements).

OTOH, I'm old & well-read enough to know that they are working from limited information sources, within a narrow analysis framework, and even the best-resourced and -intentioned military-style war reporting has a pretty iffy record.

I think as long as people wishing to know more about the situation with the fox in the hen house don't mind reading the latest updates from the actual fox itself, then sure.

These aren't just war cheerleaders, the ISW is literally the architects of war. Sure they know a lot about it, look at their Board of Directors. It's filled with warmongers.

If "fox" == "Russian military" and "hen house" == "Ukraine"...well, the ISW folks strike me as far too sympathetic to the hen side to be shills for the fox side, as you seem to believe.

In my analogy the fox is war profiteers and the hen house is the rest of society.

ISW is always pro-war. They are Neocons, it is a foundational part of their ideology. Any drivel coming from that place needs to be viewed through that lens.

In other news, McDonalds thinks we should eat more burgers.