Early Thoughts On The Prigozhin Mutiny

When I first heard of Yevgeny Prigozhin entering Russia I immediately sought out reliable sources to keep abreast of the situation. In case you might have guessed, I did not go to mainstream Western sources. I know — I know beyond question — that I will not get any insight from them. In the initial moments of some breaking story, some unintended information might slip through, but the narrative will quickly be spun and any useful information or insight that contradicts the official narrative will soon be verboten.

I turned instead to independent media. I admit I clicked on Sputnik briefly, not because I thought that I would get bias-free information but because I wanted to see how they were covering it. Because how people cover moments of crisis tells you more about them than about the crisis. What I saw was a failure to say much of anything at all about it, which in itself was telling. It was not ignored, but one could tell they were not sure what they should be saying and what they should not. Call it caution, call it obeying orders, no news is still better than blatant propaganda and the mindless speculation of moronic news hosts.

I turned at first to Twitter to hear what some voices I consider informed and reliable had to say. There I found a conversation of people trying to wrap their heads around the situation. Intelligent people trying to understand a situation rather than make what they know fit in with their biases. Not a lot to go on but assuredly better than anything I’d find from the “experts”.

The next morning I sought out The Duran. The Duran, by the way, is listed at Media Bias/Fact Check as having a “far-right-wing-bias”, as well as being completely untrustworthy. Which is complete nonsense, according to what I have seen of them. It could be that they are right-wing — such terms mean little in this day and age when the greatest threat appears in the mainstream middle that never questions what it is told by authority. The point is that even if they are “far-right-wing” they do not exhibit a far-right-wing bias. I’m far-left, I think I would be able to sniff out such a thing.

The hosts of The Duran expected the coup to be quelled but acknowledged that such an event would definitely hurt the Reputation of Vladimir Putin and his government, showing him to be weak and vulnerable. All in all it was a very balanced, thoughtful take on the situation given what they knew at the time. In short, they said nothing which they would want to deny or hide or have to make excuses for.

Quite the opposite could be said of those who work in the Western media and those who are cheerleaders for the establishment on social media. Anything, literally anything, that could be harmful to Vladimir Putin is automatically to be touted, regardless of what the costs might be. So thoughtlessly reactionary are they, the did not know or stop to think that Prigozhin might be objecting to the fact that Putin was fighting the war in an insufficiently harsh manner, that Putin was costing the lives of Wagner by being too cautious. There was a tinge of ecstasy in their words when they spoke of Prigozhin’s mutiny, despite the very real threats of increased deaths all around and perhaps even nuclear war. Once again, the risk of nuclear war is a small consideration compared to the vital mission of the U.S. and its vassals — I mean allies — to punish Russia.

Once Prigozhin’s uprising came to a quick denouement in the first act of the drama, however, U.S. pundits were generally quick to point out, as The Duran had hours and now days beforehand, that such an incident would only hurt Putin’s prestige in the world and in his own country. The talking heads and politicians did not make this pronouncement at the end of any intelligent and balanced assessment of the situation, however, they made it as an obligatory slam on Putin, Russia, and all things relating to Russia. It is literally what they do, in the same way that Marco Rubio, being told that the U.S. had 24 biological research facilities in Ukraine, said something like “but if there was an attack using biological weapons, we could 100% be sure it was the Russian’s fault, right?

The irony here is that, whether the actual facts are in Russia’s favor or not, Russia and Putin may very well end up looking stronger because of what took place over the weekend. While initially appearing as an undeniable sign of weakness on the part of Putin’s government, the entire event has proven to be so bizarre that nobody even pretends to know what really happened. This means everyone must interpret the events for his or herself. And the narratives that signal this as a genius move for Putin are both intriguing and as likely at this point as any other.

The truth seldom has simple answers, but people demand them, and the neat and simple answers seem to favor Putin. The map above is one such example of a simple and ingenious explanation of what really happened. Again, I’m not saying this is the truth, but it’s one hell of a narrative. And it’s one that even Zelensky has to consider. The second most convincing and pleasing narrative — one that ties nicely in with the first, is that Putin was aware of many sleeper cells and potential sellouts within his country and was looking to orchestrate something that would cause them to expose themselves. Enter a fake Prigozhin insurrection that would expose traitors, thus eradicating a future risk. This narrative is bolstered by the fact that the last time Prigozhin openly and fiercely criticized the Russian government and military, he shortly afterwards participated in the defeat of the Ukrainian army in Bakhmut.

I’m not saying both or either of these narratives are true, just that they are stories worthy of a Tom Clancy spy novel. In short, people would like to believe that this is how the world really works, because it has a coolness factor to it. And it does make as much sense as anything being espoused by the likes of Gary Kasparov, Michael McFaul, Anne Applebaum, or any other think tank employee who makes a comfortable living never once saying anything positive about Russia and never once saying anything negative about the U.S. Empire. The Kasparovs and the McFauls will undoubtedly come up with narratives that are at once less imaginative and less likely than the two I’ve mentioned, and those who follow them will surely nod their heads. But to the people who are inclined toward supporting Russia, I’m betting they won’t buy it.

Time will tell. For now only speculation and propaganda are possible. Beware those who are busily spinning narrative before the dust settles. Now is the time for speculation, not certainly. Unless, of course, you’re being paid by one side or the other.