There was a lot of work on professionalizing the essentially greenfield Ukrainian Army by NATO members like Canada, US, UK, France, Germany, Türkiye, etc.
That said, a number of the unsavory militias from the 2014-15 period (such as the Azov Brigade and the Dudayev Battalion) still exist in a limited form, but largely neutered due to the efforts out to professionalize the Ukrainian Army.
It is not crazy, if you take into account that the genocidal war is very popular among Russians, and the only complain they have is that it is not going according to their expectations. They blame the top military officials for that and think that wagner will be more efficient in killing Ukrainians.
Not everyone is on top of who's part of the mercenary company and some people could just see this as "a change", so they would offer some support.
Not making a statement of "how things really are" here, just saying that sometimes an explanation might be "jeez, finally there's some change, maybe something will happen out of this" and not "let me go support these genocidal mercenaries".
He knows the regime is weak and pulled all the levers he could to make it look weaker and get himself more support. He's not tricking anyone, others know what he is but by suddenly speaking against the war he's signalled clearly they have the same immediate goals. I'd imagine that also went through some conscripted or otherwise unenthusiastic soldiers heads when they decided not to confront his mercenaries.
I think Putin expected Russian soldiers to resist when he gave a tough speech last night. They all watched except the air force.
Think about how many videos exist of generic Russian troops and tanks moving on the M4 and around the Ministry of Defense building in Rostov just on Twitter alone. Most of the time the only way to differentiate Wagner from regular troops is a little patch on their arms.
It’s very hard to verify the date a video was taken, even when there’s several of them online. Deception is always a concern and it takes time to gather enough experts to cross verify facts and find trustworthy sources on the ground.
This whole incident was actually quite accessible this time around - a lot less fog of war than usual. Google Maps showed blockages on the M4 and Prigozhin sent out audio messages via official channels.
Because (US) foreign correspondence is a hollow shell of itself.
https://twitter.com/ChrisBuryNews/status/1672410476364300288...
> At @abc we had foreign bureaus in Beijing, Beirut, Berlin, Cairo, Frankfort, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, London, Moscow, Paris, Rome, Tel Aviv and Tokyo.
> Only London is left.
During that era (last quarter of the 20th century), every one of those papers (not just the NYT) had a significant foreign presence. That list above of ABC bureaus - the foreign bureaus for a national broadcast network - is not that much more longer than the list of foreign bureaus for an average newspaper with a circulation of 300k-500k. I recall one of my dad’s papers in the ‘80s having bureaus in Moscow, Bombay, Karachi, London, Jerusalem… surely also places like Rome, Paris and Tokyo. I think those are all gone now.
That’s a lot of news gathering that’s just gone.
Yeah, but now we can cut and paste tweets as independent sources so it's ok
Most news in general has been financialized because margins are very low, leading to everyone depending on wire services for 80-90% of all reporting. Take a look at articles on both CNN and Fox, both will source 80-90% of their articles from the same wire services and add a sprinkle of commentary+opinion.
This is factually incorrect and probably ideologically charged statement. Freedom of press in Russia is significantly restricted but good journalism is far from being dead. Sometimes you have to read between the lines or understand the affiliations to filter the content, but it still can provide you a lot of valuable information.
Why do you think it’s not this?
While I don’t know how truly “weakened” Putin has become, this seems like it could have easily been a trap to find any who would side with them.
This raises an interesting question for me.
The invasion of Ukraine enjoys popular support inside Russia - around 70%. The justification continuously put forward regarding why such a large proportion of the Russian population supports the invasion is that they've been brain-washed by state media into believing that Ukraine requires "de-Nazification".
That the Wagner group enjoys such popular support, while their Nazi sympathies are also common knowledge^ makes this justification questionable.
My best, admittedly totally speculative, guess right now is that the Russian populace has a far better/non-brainwashed understanding of the geopolitical situation than what is commonly suggested, and that while everyone is happy to go along with the de-Nazification pretence, in reality the populace harbours the same ambitions for a return of Russian imperial power that the Russian leadership does, and also holds similar moralistic perspective.
^I believe this to be the case, but I'm not certain. At the very least there doesn't seem a state sponsored campaign to hide it
I remember reading somewhere, that "Nazism" means something rather different in Russian culture than in Western culture. In the West, you say "Nazi" and the first thing most people think of is the Nazi mass murder of Jews, the Holocaust–that's what the school curriculum focuses on. But in Russia, you say "Nazi" and the first thing most people think of is the Nazi mass murder of Russians–that's what the Russian school curriculum focuses on. In the West, "Nazi=homicidal anti-semitism"; in Russia, "Nazi=homicidal Russophobia".
But, given that, what sense do they make of a group of Russian "Nazis" who support the Kremlin and fight its wars? It is a bit like if you met a group of neo-Nazis, and discovered they were all openly and proudly Jewish. If something doesn't make sense, people often just choose to pay no attention to it.
Similarly, the Russian accusations that Ukraine is a "neo-Nazi regime" seem ludicrous to Western ears – "Zelenskyy is of Jewish descent, his great grandparents died in the Holocaust, how can he be a Nazi?" But to most Russians, for whom the primary meaning of "Nazi" is not "antisemite" but "Russophobe", the idea that "Ukrainian nationalism=Nazism" makes more sense, and Zelenskyy's Jewishness appears irrelevant.
Still terrifying. LGBT folks like myself, Romani people, and more were also in those gas chambers.
Edit: lol, downvotes. Yeah, anti-LGBT sentiment is still popular on the right, in Russia the US, and all points between. Huzzah, the gas chambers!
You didn't come across as getting the point of what I was saying – my point was "if in your own mind, your fundamental definition of group X is that they are anti-Y, people who are (openly and proudly) X and Y simultaneously doesn't make any sense, and when faced with a situation which makes zero sense given pre-existing assumptions, many people will react by just ignoring it". My example of "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly Jewish" was just an illustrative example; "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly LGBT" or "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly Romani" or even "neo-Nazis who are openly and proudly LGBT Romani", are examples of it too.
Your comment also comes across as a generic tangent which isn't trying to add anything original or insightful to the discussion, just repeating facts most people here already know. Yes, we all know the Nazis committed crimes against many different groups – you didn't mention the disabled, the mentally ill, Poles, Serbs (murdered by the Nazis' Ustashe allies in Croatia), Black people, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, the Czechs of Lidice, among others – but is simply pointing that out adding anything useful to the conversation? We don't need to list every single victim of Nazi crimes every time they become the topic of conversation, and "you forgot about X, they were victims too" is rarely a valuable contribution.
Finally, reaching for "anti-LGBT sentiment" as an explanation for the downvotes, rather than considering other possible explanations – like your apparent failure to get the point, or contributing a generic tangent – isn't helping you either.
In Canada there is a monument to a Nazi SS division [1], because it was made up of Ukrainian volunteers fighting the Soviets, post-Holodomor that was seen as the lesser of two evils.
So with that small bit of trivia in mind, your explanation really does make sense and I'm surprised I haven't seen it put or thought of it that way. I reckon that context is probably also relevant to the "nazi-ism" of Ukrainian paramilitary (and now formal military) units like Azov Brigade? (although being close to totally ignorant on the subject, for all I know said groups are equally antisemitic).
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorials_in_Canada_to_Nazis...
Whether we are talking about Ukrainian nationalists, or Croatian nationalists, or Finns, or whoever else – if the Nazis are the only people willing to be your allies, what do you do?
And in India: Subhas Chandra Bose, one of the leaders of the Indian independence movement, chose to ally himself with Hitler and Imperial Japan. Many Indians today still view him as a hero, and do not think his willingness to fight with the Axis condemns him. At the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in Japan, where Japan's war criminals are deified, there is a statute honouring the Indian judge Radhabinod Pal, who was the only judge at the Tokyo War Crimes Trial to acquit all the defendants. Through the memories of Bose and Pal, the governments of India and Japan have found something to bond over–their shared sympathy for the losing side in the Second World War.
Hmm, I wonder why. Maybe because of this [0]:
"An UVO brochure from 1929 stated: "Terror will be not only a means of self-defense, but also a form of agitation, which will affect friend and foe alike, regardless of whether they desire it or not."
The UVO organized a number of assassination attempts on some of the most renowned Polish and Ukrainian politicians, some of which were successful."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Military_Organizatio...
That's not the only thing they were doing. [0]
"like Azov Brigade"
I'd recommend a book by a Canadian journalist collaborating with Bellingcat on the subject of Azov and other Ukrainian nationalists. [1]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Divisi...
[1] http://cup.columbia.edu/book/from-the-fires-of-war/978383821...
Of course, the optics of being seen as a Nazi are very bad, so even Nazis are constantly pointing fingers and saying "no, THAT person is the true Nazi." But the facts aren't on their side, so we have no obligation to humor them when they say absurd things like "Zelenskyy is the true Nazi", when the man, aside from being Jewish, also isn't espousing Nazi ideology.
> “Wagner” is literally a Nazi dog whistle. Wagner group are not just small-n “nazis”
and
> Or at least some of them are.
This isn't the type of substantive comment that HN is looking for. It definitely leans towards "flamebait" while lacking substance that the rest of us can work with or learn from. I don't even necessarily disagree with you, but I would argue that this comment doesn't add anything helpful to this discussion.
It’s like calling the group “88 Division”. Sure, not all of the grunts working for them are dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, but the leadership sure are.
Wagner was never a Nazi – he died six years before Hitler was born. Wagner isn't my thing, but not all fans of his music (even today) are Nazis. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was a big Wagner fan–of course, he knew Wagner was a rabid antisemite, but he managed to look past that and appreciate his music in spite of his antisemitism. In 2001, the Israeli conductor Mendi Rodan–a Holocaust survivor–conducted the first public performance of one of Wagner's works in Israel since before the Second World War. If a Holocaust survivor can separate the artistic value of Wagner's music from Wagner's Jew-hatred, can others?
I wouldn't recommend naming something after him–especially in contemporary English-speaking culture which is very focused on the historical associations of names–although it is easy to forget how specific that (relatively recent development) is to a particular cultural sphere, something alien to much of the globe–but I wouldn't assume someone who did so was necessarily motivated by any sympathy for Nazism or antisemitism, especially someone coming from a culture which lacks that focus.
Actually, here's an open source project named Wagner, and obviously in reference to the composer – https://github.com/spite/Wagner – maybe an unfortunate choice of name, but I see no reason to accuse the author of sympathy for Nazism or antisemitism
> It’s like calling the group “88 Division”. Sure, not all of the grunts working for them are dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, but the leadership sure are.
"88" can mean a lot of different things. To Australians of a certain age, it may make them think of Australia's bicentenary celebrations in 1988. Some in the UK may remember "Charter 88", a left-of-centre constitutional reform pressure group founded in that year. In Chinese culture, 88 means good luck–and as someone who lives in a country with a significant Chinese minority, I've seen it used in that sense a lot over the years. I have no idea what (if anything) "88" means in Russia, but I wouldn't assume a hypothetical Russian group with "88" in its name necessarily had anything to do with Nazism. "88" as a neo-Nazi code is part of American culture, in other cultures 88 means completely different things, or nothing at all. Even in US culture, it has meanings unrelated to Nazism (amateur radio, NASCAR)
I'm no fan of Wagner PMC – they are brutes guilty of war crimes – but why bother with this worthless "dog whistle" criticism of them when there are lots of real atrocities we can condemn them for?
Who are you talking about here? Yevgeny Prigozhin? Dmitry Utkin?
And what is the evidence either of them is a "nazi sympathizer"?
As I said, I'm no fan of either man – I expect the day will come when the ICC indicts both of them for war crimes – but I don't see the point of labelling them as "nazis" on the basis of flimsy evidence. The case that they are war criminals is much stronger than the case that they are Nazis – and surely being a war criminal is a lot worse than being a Nazi (not all of whom were guilty of war crimes/crimes against humanity/genocide–Franz von Papen joined the Nazi Party and served Nazi Germany as its ambassador–first to Austria and then to Turkey–but the Nuremberg Trial acquitted him of all charges)
The site guidelines [0] explicitly say "Assume good faith". So this comment of yours does not appear to be in compliance with them.
Those people behind this are nazis with nazis tatoos, a name and a logo inspired by nazis, are doing nazi-like actions and support nazi racial ideologies.
No amount of bikeshedding, moving goalposts and reasoning fallacies won't change the facts about this nazi group.
Also, you accuse me of violating the guidelines, but your allegation never cites their text; whereas, in accusing me of "bad faith" you are violating an explicit statement in them ("Assume good faith")
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
I'm not accusing of bad faith, I'm witnessing bad faith, bikeshedding and multiple sophisms trying to deny what this group is.
And it's not only on HN, this behavior doesn't really lead to productive discussion anywhere either.
Not that I care much, I'm not going to convince people going as far as denying neo-nazi groups, I'm just passing by and pointing the large argumentation issues made while doing said process.
You can have a good day.
This comment is yet another example of how you are not arguing in good faith.
You're somehow trying to misrepresent the problem of your insistence in downplaying and even denying evidence of Wagner's neonazi and white supremacists ties as just people disagreeing, and then passing yourself as a victim for being attacked for not agreeing with something. This is a gross misrepresentation of the whole discussion.
You're referring to a guy covered in Nazi tattoos who created an organization reflecting Nazi ideology and with known tie with white supremacists and neonazi ideologies as having no objective ties to Nazi ideologies. While you deny that, you're desperately trying to pass off any remark refuting your baseless claim as being attacks o difference of opinions, when actually you're irrationally denying evidence and insisting on pushing a blatantly false idea.
You don't seem to be arguing in good faith, and it looks you're trying to manipulate and distort things to whitewash neonazi organizations under the excuse of relativizing evidence, shift burdens of proof, and manipulating objectivisim bars to still claim a fact is not verified in spite of all the evidence and thus it should be treated as false. This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism.
If you go back and read what I said, I said:
> what is the evidence either of them is a "nazi sympathizer"?
That's not denying anything. That's simply asking what the evidence is.
When asking what the evidence for an assertion is gets the response:
> This is not good faith, and screams as neonazi apologism.
I don't think we are engaging in rational discussion any more. Continued engagement is pointless.
No, you're not. Evidence was already presented, time and again. You chose to ignore it, time and again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
https://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallacy_of_Argument_by_Dema...
The jig is up. Stop it. You could be faced with a signed confession with someone asserting they are a neonazi white supremacist, and you'd still try to reject it with some lame excuse like "oh they might just be joking", and proceed as you've been proceeding and insist in more evidence.
That's simply false. There absolutely is such a thing as neo-Nazis: people like George Lincoln Rockwell, Matthias Koehl and Rocky Suhayda (leaders of the "American Nazi Party" and its splinter groups), William John Beattie (founder of the "Canadian Nazi Party"), Colin Jordan (leader of the "World Union of National Socialists" and founder of the "National Socialist Movement in the United Kingdom"). David Myatt, the founder of the O9A Satanist group, used to publicly identify as a Nazi–and although he has since insisted that he has renounced Nazism, I'm sceptical that his renunciation is genuine. I could go on, there's many more names I could add to that list.
If someone says "I'm a Nazi", I'm going to take their word for it. All the people I just mentioned openly said that (or words to that effect), so I am going to take their word for it.
Prigozhin and Utkin are both horrible human beings, and very likely guilty of war crimes–but I'm not aware either of them has ever said "I'm a Nazi". Stuff like tattoos are weak evidence because symbols can mean different things to different people, and you can only guess at what it actually means to that person–that's especially the case when dealing with a different country with a very different culture. Whereas, "I'm a Nazi" is evidence that is very hard to dispute.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
>Just asking questions
>Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
>The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
>Strategy
>The purpose of this argument method is to influence spectators' views by asking leading questions, regardless of the answers given. The term is derived from the questioner's frequent claim that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.[1]
>In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). In avoiding proposing their own hypothesis, the questioner can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forward (or even just admitting to believing something crazy) can be a worthy accomplishment.
>The questioner may claim they are playing devil's advocate. This is frequently to advance an odious position with no shortage of existing advocates.
>A dead give-away is when the person using this technique ignores the answers given, and just continues to ask the same questions.
If someone else is wrong or you feel they are, the good options include (1) post correct information substantively, so the rest of us can learn (this is very different from calling names and attacking personally, as you and others did in this thread); (2) downvote and/or (if the comment breaks the site guidelines) flag the post; (3) chalk it up to the internet being wrong and simply move on.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
I felt like using sophisms to defend neo-nazis wasn't in the spirit of HN, I come here for the intellectual curiosity and productive messages.
I know that with a topic this provocative it's difficult to read other people correctly, but the site guidelines provide explicit guidance about that too:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
The American Jewish Committee has a lengthy article on Wagner's white supremacists and neo-Nazi ties.
https://www.ajc.org/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-wag...
The only thing that is flimsy is your willingness to accept evidence. I have serious doubts about your good faith by the way you're looking at a guy covered in Nazi tattoos and still insist in pretending those have no relationship with neonazi ideologies.
Also, "88 = Heil Hitler" doesn't make a lot of sense in Russian, since H is not the 8th letter of the Russian alphabet (it is Ж, normally transliterated as zh), and "Heil Hitler" in Russian is хайль гитлер – х is the 20th letter of the Russian alphabet not the 8th.
14/88 doesn't make a lot of sense in Russian, doesn't stop it from being plastered all over the place by different militias (Including, but not limited to, Wagner).
This level of kindergarten logic from a grown ass men never cease to amaze me.
>> In March 2015, Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in the Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[282][283] US training however was withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as the US House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking any aid (including arms and training) to the regiment due to its neo-Nazi background.[284][285] *However, the amendment was later removed in November 2015,[284]*
I am deeply suspicious of these kinds of numbers. I just don't see any practical way of getting an honest sample.
Or people are terrified that if they appear to not be supporting the war they would end up in the gulags or, ironically, get sent to the frontlines with a gun pointed at their back.
I think this is probably true in a very limited, bone-deep way. They sense the power dynamics, feel the desire to be on top. What's needed is a rationalization for the conscious mind, to ease the path for it to come to the same conclusion, to endorse the actions you already wanted to take. Propaganda does just fine with that.
With that said, I think there are pretty large areas of detailed fact re: the state of the invasion, the economy, etc, where they are in fact deceived. All we can say about that is that it's extremely difficult to stand up under a constant barrage of one perspective when that one comes to your door and the other is restricted enough that you at least have to go out of your way for it. Especially if it's been that way your whole life.
How can you get this number? Today in Russia any question by a pollster sounds like "Do you support the war or do you want to get fined for "discreditation of the army"?". I remember quite different reaction to the Western polls in Crimea showing that huge majority support reunification with Russia -- "No, no, you can't believe any polls conducted in a non-free country, people there are just afraid to say they hate Russia and want back to the Ukraine".
"while their Nazi sympathies are also common knowledge"
I don't know anyone who knows that and supports Wagner.
You should not take this number seriously. It has been greatly exaggerated by russian propaganda. At the same time there is no independent reliable polling in russia at this time. Also, Russians are reluctant to share their real views due to harsh criminal+administrative penalties for "spreading fakes about the army". The war vividly exposed all the corruption, grift, lawlessness, inefficiencies in russia on a huge scale. But people are anemic and resined to their fate. 20 years of putin took the wind out of their sails.
This is, in my experience, actually a good indication that the event was truly a surprise to the Russian government. Their media apparatus is very good at having a cohesive narrative and lots of talking points in place before planned information operations, and they're not typically great at responding to events on the ground as they unfold, usually needing a couple of days to assemble a media campaign in response to unexpected events. The lack of any coordinated information response is a tell that the Russian government didn't anticipate this whole shebang.
1. Bad production quality and a clear message
2. Intense media coverage in Russia
3. Positive message about the Russian state
Literally none of these points were apparent here. It shows a weak Russian state, was covered only as so far as necessary and what the message would be was completely unclear. Don't hire mercenaries?
This existed, it just didn't exist in the traditional media. Look in the right discord servers and there were new videos being posted every 5 minutes as the convoy was moving around.
I'd long ago realised that this was a significant indicator of a crisis situation in many contexts. These range from military attack to natural disaster to political or business unrest.
The first indications of the atom bomb attack on Hiroshima were a) scattered reports of a "large explosion" and b) instant loss of all telegraph communications from a point some distance from the city centre inwards. Though the bomb struck early in day, it wasn't until that afternoon that an Imperial Japanese Army observation plane was able to fly over the city and surveil the damage, and the next day that the cause was known, after the United States informed Japan through diplomatic channels.
Similarly, when the HMS Sheffield was struck by Argentinian Exocet missiles during the Falklands War, the immediate effects were a loss of communications with the ship, and the first accurate information arrived, via heliocopter, along with the first casualties transported off the Sheffield.
In widespread natural disasters, particularly earthquakes, tsunamis, and hurricanes, there is often some communications from major urban centres, but even those are limited and often outlying regions are entirely cut off. I recall when following a major Chilean earthquake, the US immediately offered satellite telephones, which could be used to report on conditions from remote communities.
In business or personal relationship usually characterised by open channels, "no news is bad news" is a useful heuristic.
For start-ups and business, there's an almost ridiculously predictable progression of blog (and more recently: social media) updates, initially exuberant, enthusiastic, and often technical, shifting to highly-managed public relations releases focusing on business and social factors, to ... silence. The latter often ends with a "next stage in our story" post, i.e., "we're shutting down".
And in political and military situations, what used to be a fat channel of communications (though not necessarily useful or accurate) is cut off as chains of command become unclear, leadership and spokespersons scramble for safety, and rumour and gossip spew forth. That last is its own interesting mix: the genuinely confused or misinformed, often, but also those trying to influence or exploit circumstances.
That "official channels" bit has been the case, and a major failing of news organisations for over a century. Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz pointed this out in a 1920 New Republic article, "A Test of the News", commenting in large part on the New York Times's coverage (and failings) of the Russian Revolution. In particular was the issue of ideologically-tinged coverage, here anti-Communist principally. (Later the bias would run the other direction, particularly in the 1930s during the Holodomor.)
Lippmann and Merz note:
The analysis shows how seriously misled was the Times by its reliance upon the official purveyors of information. It indicates that statements of fact emanating from governments and the circles around governments as well as from the leaders of political movements cannot be taken as judgements of fact by an independent press. They indicate opinion, they are controlled by special purpose, and they are not trustworthy news. If, for example, the Russian Minister of War says that the armies of Russia were never stronger, that cannot be accepted by a newspaper as news that the armies of Russia are stronger than ever. The only news in the statement is that the Minister says they are stronger.
<https://archive.org/details/LippmannMerzATestoftheNews/page/...>
They continue to note the especially insidious nature of the anonymous source. The whole article is interesting reading, and bears strong parallels to events occurring today.
As do the practices Lippmann and criticise. Over a century later, news organisations still rely overwhelmingly on official (and unofficial) government spokespersons, and in the majority of cases treat such pronouncements as statements of fact, even where severe credibility issues are well known. Much of this is a result of availability heuristics (government mouthpieces are easy to find, and generally want to talk), reputation, and relationships established between journalists and sources. It is much more work to find truly independent, credible, and unmotivated witnesses.
And so, when things go pear-shaped, the official sources tend to become scarce.
Related to the disaster / comms failure dynamic I mentioned above: one rough proxy for determining how bad a widespread disaster in fact is is to look at where casualty reports have not yet been received. Again: capital and major cities typically preserve some communications capacity. Outlying regions are far more likely to be cut off, and by looking at the relative size and significance of locations that are making reports, as well as patterns of communications cessation, it's possible to make some inferences about total magnitude. Note that offical tallies of morbidity and mortality are based on received, credible, verified reports, which is to say, official statistics will almost always understate actual impacts, possibly for hours, days, or weeks, depending on overall severity. The 2004 Boxing Day Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami comes to mind, with full official counts taking months or years to finally settle.
I "ran" a bot/crawler hobby project that takes a russian-speaking telegram channel as an input and outputs the messages in a translated form, including text, images and video. During this situation I realized this became really relevant so I improved during the coup it to support multiple input channels and to keep a queue as post processing takes long for videos, and to provide audio transcriptions (Prigozhin himself likes to post audio clips)
I don't think its true that there was not much information. There actually was minute-by-minute updates by citizens, Wagner itself, establishment-oriented channels etc. You can read the backlog if you want: https://t.me/translatedrussianpropaganda
At the peak there was some real queue and I had to switch from running it on an ARM VM to my 12-core local system just to keep up. Whisper takes the longest to run, and given it translates spoken russian really well, I claim it was the first source of information in several occasions for people that don't speak Russian, for the few people that actually joined the channel (I didn't advertise it but on a small forum because I knew it might become a maintenance/fixing burden).
I'm inclined to believe that this entire drama was manufactured by the MSM working with US Intelligence to spread the fallacy that there is chaos on the Russian side. Prigozhin may have been upset that he wasn't getting the support his men needed and may have retreated in protest. And even that is pure speculation.
Prigozhin isn't an idiot and if he purportedly did what the MSM is parroting then he failed spectacularly and sending Putin a j/k, bff? SMS isn't going to cut it. If Prigozhin is alive a week from now, then this was just more manufactured bullshit from the MSM.
Why would people not support Wagner over the regular army, and specifically over Shoigu and Gerasimov that he alleges to target? I can explain. None of the reasoning below is meant to excuse or praise Wagner or the rest of Russian actors in the region, but nevertheless, it's valuable to understand people's perspective.
This stuff about Utkin's Nazism, with Prigozhin himself son of a Jewish man, is completely peripheral and not in any way more salient than fringe National Socialist elements and Azov symbolic on the Ukrainian side that Russians make much hay of (in spite of Zelensky, too, being Jewish). The accusation just doesn't bite when there's a Slav on Slav war going on, it's only good for propaganda and twitter point-scoring, neither side there is seriously making decisions with relation to WWII political compass.
War crimes? This whole – unrecognized – war is a crime if we're serious about it, and regular Russian military is neck deep in war crimes, and it wasn't (far as anyone knows) Wagner that had terrorized Bucha, obliterated Mariupol or blew up the Kahovka dam, to name just three high-profile atrocities. Executions? The most recent case was them executing a defector (and a repeat criminal offender, from Ukraine, who had been serving a term for aggravated murder prior to his recruitment and defection). I don't think it's surprising when people in a rather harsh society shrug about such things (not to whatabout, but how many Americans would approve or at least not object to Snowden's execution?).
On the other hand, there are very salient reasons Russians support Wagner.
1. They just have a compelling, powerful image. It is known that they've succeeded in a few areas where regular forces have failed; Prigozhin is somewhat good at moving speeches; and they've been effective at exaggerating the difference and appropriating credit. Reminder that Prigozhin is a man of many talents and careers, one among those being management of the so-called Internet Research Agency [1]; catering business, paramilitary operations and illustration of children's books [2] aside, he's been in charge of propaganda for a long time now.
2. Adding to that, they just have an outsized presence in people's minds, there are catchy edgy music videos [3] and decently made movies [4] of their production (with military history buffs praising that movie), many affiliated Telegram channels, they're just very online, including Prigozhin personally – unlike Russian Ministry of Defense that's infamously behind the times, secretive, prone to embarrassing transparent lies, "boomer-like". It's another Russian self-own, in a sense, because the MoD grasped at Wagnerite meme magic to rescue the perception of the campaign, and became overshadowed as a result.
3. The war is not genuinely popular, especially now that it's clearly close to being lost. Surveys to the effect that 70% of Russians support the war omit details that this support is often in the form "we'll be exterminated if we surrender" [5], it's not driven by some positive expectation of Imperial greatness but by fear, very much like 1945 Germany but exacerbated by connectivity [6]; there was an awful lot of chauvinistic smugness early on, but not now. Prigozhin articulates criticism of the status quo (Ukraine never planned to attack, the operation was a mistake, it needlessly made Ukraine into a real threat, eroded Russian prestige, brought NATO closer to the heart of Russia than it'd have been otherwise etc.) [7] that resonates with people vastly more than coping output of the official organs.
4. People really, truly hate and look down on Shoigu, even people in the regular army. Thus they did not open fire at Wagner forces, and there's such a volatile situation that soldiers at the frontline are often not given arms, due to fear of mutiny. It is known at this point, in large part thanks to Wagner propaganda, that Shoigu is a corrupt bureaucratic oaf not qualified for his job, who appopriates vast sums and even diverts military resources for his pampered daughter, who only became a Minister due to his ties within Russian elite (he's one of the most powerful members of the gang, jumping between top-level posts for three decades). He's a lightning rod for all aspects of dissatisfaction with the way the war has gone for Russia (which might be part of why Putin keeps him around). And he's specifically hated by the unorganized but powerful undercurrent of ethnic Russian nationalism, due to being perceived as a strongly identifying Tuvan Buddhist [8] feudal lord with a private army [9] who is completely beyond any reproach and glibly sends tens of thousands of Russians (plus of course other peoples) to the meatgrinder, in meat waves, for zero benefit. Shoigu is understood as "noviop" [10], a member of semi-artificial Soviet post-ethnic people, and the deeper one's ethno-nationalism, the less support he gets, with people really concerned about Slavic race and so on charging him with slaughter of Slavs on both sides. In contrast, Prigozhin plays up his Russophilic and Slavophilic attitude, has his son serving in Wagner, cries crocodile tears about the loss of lives, and very pointedly, repeatedly drives the connection, in very simple language: "the "Tuvan degenerate" Shoigu denies us materiel – thousands of our Russian boys are getting killed by the enemy". With Ukrainians apparently unbeatable and, frankly, acting in their right, the conclusion about ways to stop boys from being killed becomes obvious enough. Like Kadyrov, his fellow warlord, he conspicuously does not accuse the Supreme Leader of any wrongdoing, but the implication about actions he believes are legitimate for Putin to take are clear.
In short, it's best to understand the situation not so much as Wagner group being popular with Russians on its own merits, but as Russia having arrived at the metastable condition where any cohesive military unit that seems competent and starts a mutiny against the Ministry of Defense can expect nontrivial cooperation from the masses and other forces. This is, I believe, is exactly why Prigozhin is acting in such a bizarre manner: he is making clear to Putin that he could easily move around and destabilize the war effort, all to secure his own survival – in the way that popular field commanders of "Novorossiya" failed to do, and got eliminated on Kremlin orders as potential competitors for control.
Wagner is theoretically easy to destroy, but has enough momentum to topple the Army and potentially send the whole regime into tailspin, with how unpopular Shoigu is; yet Putin is too invested in his little mafia family to throw Shoigu to the dogs; and if he keeps covering for Shoigu, the whole "good Czar, bad boyars" scheme implodes. So the equilibrium is letting Prigozhin go, with his force. At least for now.
I wonder when Prigozhin has started working on this.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency
2. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/06/01/wagner-head-prigoz...
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/N_N_N/comments/xn4ky5/mc_wagner_rel...
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1EXVrACxnk
5. https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/06/03/the-only-thing-worse...
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Wartime_conseq...
7. https://t.me/Prigozhin_hat/3790
8. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-pounds-12m-polite-pa...
He's letting him go but not with his force. They will try to take advantage and integrate Utkin's PMC into the MoD forces where this is possible.
Just as an example: Currently in our media Russians blew up the Kahovka dam. At no time anyone asks why they'd do that. It is detrimental to Russias strategy in the same way Russia does not profit from blowing up Nord Stream. The only reason for blowing up the dam would be to stop Ukraine forces at that flank, however the Russians were in control of the dam and they could have just opened it. Again this is similar to Nord Stream.
Could Russians have done it still? Sure, not all actions need to make sense, but it wouldn't be my first guess.
> With Ukrainians apparently unbeatable [...]
Not sure as meant as quote or not, but this does not hold water at all. Even Ukrainian officials say that the offensive isn't up to par currently. And by now we saw enough broken Leopards to say that the deliveries didn't have their desired effect either. Why are we in this war again?
So what is your first guess. Because I think it makes plenty of sense that Russia would blow up the dam, but even if we accepted your premise that it doesn’t, then for what actor does it make more sense to blow up the dam than Russia?
You may be the one who needs to take a step back and question if you’ve been consuming propaganda.
Russia had the means to block the flank at will. It does block that part for a week, sure, but after that Russia has no control over it anymore.
> [...] and question if you’ve been consuming propaganda.
That is beside the point. We all only/mostly consume propaganda. It's when you think that one side tells the truth, that you're being manipulated.
My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was negligence and perhaps a misguided attempt to "partially demolish it". The main piece of evidence against Ukrainian/Western action is the resolution of Russian Government "On the specifics of application in the territories of the Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Zaporizhzhia region and Kherson region of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities and safety of hydraulic structures", issued a week prior to the catastrophe[1], that says among many other similar things:
> d) technical investigation of the causes of accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures shall be carried out by commissions headed by representatives of the authorized bodies.
> a) The provisions of Part Six of Article 10 of the Federal Law "On Safety of Hydraulic Structures" shall not apply until 1 September, 2023;
> 8. Until March 1, 2024 the information on hydraulic structures, located in the territories of the Donetsk People's Republic, Lugansk People's Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region and put into operation until June 1, 2023, may be submitted for their inclusion in the Russian register of hydraulic structures without submission of the declaration of safety of hydraulic structures.
> *10. Until January 1, 2028 the technical investigation of accidents at hazardous production facilities and accidents at hydraulic structures, which occurred as a result of military actions, sabotage and terrorist acts, shall not be carried out.*
I'm way past trying to reason about qui bono. Sometimes it works (Nord Stream), sometimes Russia is just a magical place where stuff happens.
Source 4. and 7. are Russian. It also wasn't about the language, but affiliation.
> My personal hypothesis about the dam is that it was negligence and perhaps a misguided attempt to "partially demolish it".
Why?
> The main piece of evidence against Ukrainian/Western action is the resolution of Russian Government "On the specifics of application in the territories of the Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic, Zaporizhzhia region and Kherson region of the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of industrial safety of hazardous production facilities and safety of hydraulic structures", issued a week prior to the catastrophe[1], that says among many other similar things: [...]
This proves exactly nothing, except that Russians knew about this attack vector. Especially because according to them it was attacked weeks prior. Could be a lie, but they indeed reported it weeks prior.
> I'm way past trying to reason about qui bono. Sometimes it works (Nord Stream), sometimes Russia is just a magical place where stuff happens.
Did you forget that Russia was behind Nord Stream as well for weeks? Past cui bono is la-la-land.
>Why?
I would agree with that, because it is consistent with the general state of affairs in Russian army and government structures responsible for Ukraine. They lack intellectual capacity to evaluate all the consequences of their actions or inaction. Even if they had it, the responsible people may have not communicated it to the peers - only to the command vertical, where the message could have been lost or did not reach decision makers in time.
During Soviet times, many Russians learned to be _incredibly_ supportive of large gangs of people with guns and tanks standing in their front yard. There can be a horde of Romulans invading and they’ll be lining the road with water bottles and flower garlands.
People there still remember family members being carted away in box trucks for asking when they can expect the next food shipment. Russia is, and mostly has always been, ruled by violent thugs that believe their monopoly on violence should be exercised swiftly, frequently, and harshly.
Look how any kind of perceived criticism (or perceived lack of jubilant support) has been treated at any time in their past. Any public display of loyalty, any vox-pop interview - completely meaningless.
I find this to be a universal fact of the war in Ukraine.
I speak Russian natively and most of my family (dad and both in-laws) grew up in Ukraine.
So you'd think that compared to an average Westerner I could be well I formed about what's happening.
Yet I find it completely impossible. An amalgam of Russian sources will present a totally different tactical and historical picture than that of Western and Ukrainian sources.
I can chose to believe the later based on emotion and prevalent sentiment of where I live but objectively I don't feel confident going in either direction.
It's crazy to me that someone can feel certainty here with access to only one of the sides' information.
Perhaps and even likely this has been the case in every war but it's the first one where I am so accutely aware of it.
On the verge of the second Iraq invasion, on European TV, there was doubt about claims of WMD but a hint of oil and USA agenda. American TV at my friends house was rallying that Saddam and his regime must be ended immediately.
The two were not mutually exclusive.
If you're honestly interested on the topic, I welcome you to Google the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Putin.
It is a little funny to see you question international law and then without missing a beat pivot to “check out the icc warrants.”
Just know that at a non-negligible portion of the us is waking up to the utter nonsense.
There's quite a few heads of state who should be hauled out for trial at the Hague for doing just that. None of them will be.
[1] Unless, of course, you're a permanent UNSC member. /s
The Russians have not conquered Kyiv, their invasion has stalled but they have caused enormous damage. Ukraine has not managed to expel the invading army, though they seem determined to do so.
It seems like Russian sources have largely taken the mask off. They are there to weaken the West and strengthen themselves and are fine with that coming at the expense of Ukraine. They continue to call Ukrainians bad names, but it feels less like a serious critique of Ukrainian nationhood and more of a rallying cry for their own benefit.
The two sides do disagree on specific issues like who dropped which bomb where and who controls a given village but we seem to have moved on from the days when Russia was claiming total victory. Some of Ukraine's messages about the future are very optimistic, but it's always important to take forward looking statements with a grain of salt.
I don't understand what you tried to say. All statements about the future are statements of intent, not statements of fact. Grains of salt are not required when someone says something like "I'm going to join a gym and lose a couple of pounds." Ukraine puts out statements that are very optimistic about their future because that's their intention, and that's just it.
If you really want to stay objective, ground yourself in hard facts like
1. russia invaded Ukraine
2. russia bombed various cities to the ground
3. russia lost its originally invaded territories around Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson regions which amounts about half since 2022 invasion
4. russian military losses as reported by Ukraine are close enough to media confirmed by OSINT like oryx etc.
5. maps are hard truth which is mostly converge to the same from both sides
That said, nobody can convince anyone who wants to stay delusional. And ru propaganda machine (including online bots) is largely directed at constantly generating multiple conflicting lies to muddy the waters.
Maybe because Prigoshin was saying that the war was started for no real reason and people liked to listen to truth for a change [0]?
On the face of it, you might say "pick your poison" when choosing between Russian and Ukrainian social media sources, but the pro-Russian sources hae been consistently counter factual, stating things like the number of Patriot systems destroyed as much higher than the number of systems in theater. There are some quality pro-Ukraine sources that I've found provide consistently good info.
If you want neutral, the Austrian MOD comes out with an english language analysis once in a while which is good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJgRrpkaaU
Second observation was that the regime did not exist in the moment: with few notable exceptions, we have not even seen faces of anyone from national security council. Some local actions of the governors, fortification of Moscow, pathetic speech of Putin in the morning and that’s it. The weakness of it in the face of a violent force was exposed.
Third observation was unexpectedly high visible support of Wagner by people. Many laughing at situation or agreeing with Prigozhin‘s demands, some bringing food and water to mercenaries in Rostov. All despite that PMC Wagner is a criminal organization famous for extra-judicial executions, war crimes etc. An organization led by an open nazi (Utkin) and assembled from prisoners, many of which were convicted for violent crimes. It is crazy how people can even think of collaborating with them.
And the outcome, a deal that says Putin is no longer in control without saying it. Could it be some conspiracy to purge elites while keeping the supreme leader in power? It does not look so. It looks like he for the first time in history was forced to eat the pill. Yet he is still a president and business is as usual. It is a very dangerous moment if we remember that Russia still has nuclear weapons and it is big enough that even without using them by falling apart it can destabilize the entire world.