Latest news from Russia Today en español and Cuban News (June 24, 8:00 p.m. New York Time).
An agreement has been reached between the Wagner miliary group and the Russian government. The Wagner group is withdrawing and is heading toward their positions prior to the insurrection. The leader of the Wagner group, Yevgueni Prigozhin, will go to the neighboring country of Belarus. The government of Russia has agreed that it will end all judicial processes against Prigozhin and the members of the group, which had been initiated in response to the insurrection.
Prigozhin declared that the decision was taken to avoid the shedding of blood in an anticipated confrontation between the troops of the Wagner group and those of the Russian Ministry of Defense. The President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, mediated the agreement, with the cooperation of Putin. Lukashenko has personally known Prigozhin for twenty years.
The Wagner Group, a private militia, has fought alongside the troops of the Russian Ministry of Defense. They comprise about 10% of the Russian military forces. On Saturday, the Wagner group seized a building of the Russian defense forces in Rostov del Don and continued on a march toward Moscow. The object of the declared March of Wagner was a demand for some changes in the Ministry of Defense. A spokesperson for the Russian President declared that is very unlikely that such demands were discussed as part of the agreement. Not all the soldiers of the Wagner groups participated in the March; they will sign contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Does this opposing perspective (below) make sense, since it is coming from a very supportive critic (Prigozhin, himself)?
Surely, not everything Putin claims can be valid and accurate- in his position, he would be expected to put out any information, true or not, that justifies his actions, right? (Just as US politicians would lie to support their actions and statements.)
from corporate media:
The head of Russia's Wagner mercenary group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, said the Kremlin's justifications for its invasion of Ukraine are based on lies, in another extraordinary attack on the country's military and political leadership.
Prigozhin, a key ally of Putin, in a video posted Friday, contradicted the public explanations for the war, including the central claim made by Putin that the 2022 invasion was necessary to prevent an attack from Ukraine.
Since launching the war, Putin has painted it as a defensive operation to protect Russia. He's claimed it was needed to stop imminent large-scale attacks from Ukraine on largely Russian-speaking eastern regions in Donbas that Russia has occupied since 2014.
But in his video address, Prigozhin, whose fighters have played a leading role in the war, said that was not true and there had been no imminent risk of attack from Ukraine.
"The ministry of defense now is trying to deceive society, the president, and tell a story there was insane aggression from Ukraine and that they intended to attack us with the whole NATO bloc," Prigozhin said.
"The Special Military Operation that began on Feb. 24 was started for completely different reasons," he said.
Prigozhin also said in Friday's video that the two goals Putin announced at the start of the war— the "demilitarization" and "de-Nazification" of Ukraine—were "pretty stories."
Instead, he blamed Shoigu, the defense ministry and a "clan of oligarchs" for starting the war. He accused Shoigu of seeking glory and wanting "to rob" Ukraine and divide up its assets.
Prigozhin's attacks are extraordinary in Russia, where public criticism of the authorities risks harsh punishment. Since the war began last year, criticism of the military leadership has become a criminal offense.
Prigozhin did not directly attack Putin in the video, instead claiming the president was being deceived by his generals and other figures around him. In reality though, Putin—not Shoigu—has taken the lead in making the claims around Donbas and de-Nazification the central justifications of the war, reciting them in his speech declaring his "Special Military Operation."
The implicit picture Prigozhin gave of Putin as weak and out of touch was also remarkable, implying he was manipulated by a clan of wealthy businessmen around him and lied to by his military. The war, as described by Prigozhin, was not about protecting Russia or resisting NATO expansion, but instead greed.
As I listened to the discourses of Putin, I was very impressed by his capacity to analyze and explain. I do not find credible the portrayal of Putin as a weak leader manipulated by generals and others.
Putin’s justifications of the special military operation were only secondarily based on projections of future developments, such as a Ukrainian attack on Russa. They were based on the previous conduct of NATO and Ukraine, facts that at the time were not emphasized or known in the West, but since that time have been confirmed by analysts from the West and the Third World, namely, NATO territorial expansion, US involvement in Ukrainian politics, systemic attacks on the Russian civilian population in Ukraine, and disregard for the Minsk accords.
In the United States, we are accustomed to politicians who pretend to support the people as they defend the interests of the elite. This has cultivated a political culture of cynicism with respect to the words of politicians. But such a situation of structurally supported lying is not universally the case. In many cases in the world, political leaders are in fact defending the causes that they proclaim to be supporting, and some become skilled at offering good explanations in defense of the cause. My sense is that Putin represents sectors that seek to restore Russian national honor, not only in defending Russian interests on its western border, but also in developing cooperative relations with nations that are seeking their sovereignty in opposition to Western imperialism.
The corporate media cannot speak with legitimacy before the Third World. The episode strikes me as an effort by the Western corporate elite and political establishment to destabilize Russia, using the techniques that have been used against several countries in the unconventional war of the last decade, which includes the support of key internal actors, when possible.
Latest news from Russia Today en español and Cuban News (June 24, 8:00 p.m. New York Time).
An agreement has been reached between the Wagner miliary group and the Russian government. The Wagner group is withdrawing and is heading toward their positions prior to the insurrection. The leader of the Wagner group, Yevgueni Prigozhin, will go to the neighboring country of Belarus. The government of Russia has agreed that it will end all judicial processes against Prigozhin and the members of the group, which had been initiated in response to the insurrection.
Prigozhin declared that the decision was taken to avoid the shedding of blood in an anticipated confrontation between the troops of the Wagner group and those of the Russian Ministry of Defense. The President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, mediated the agreement, with the cooperation of Putin. Lukashenko has personally known Prigozhin for twenty years.
The Wagner Group, a private militia, has fought alongside the troops of the Russian Ministry of Defense. They comprise about 10% of the Russian military forces. On Saturday, the Wagner group seized a building of the Russian defense forces in Rostov del Don and continued on a march toward Moscow. The object of the declared March of Wagner was a demand for some changes in the Ministry of Defense. A spokesperson for the Russian President declared that is very unlikely that such demands were discussed as part of the agreement. Not all the soldiers of the Wagner groups participated in the March; they will sign contracts with the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Message from Ryan Ross:
Again, Charles, thanks for responding.
Does this opposing perspective (below) make sense, since it is coming from a very supportive critic (Prigozhin, himself)?
Surely, not everything Putin claims can be valid and accurate- in his position, he would be expected to put out any information, true or not, that justifies his actions, right? (Just as US politicians would lie to support their actions and statements.)
from corporate media:
The head of Russia's Wagner mercenary group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, said the Kremlin's justifications for its invasion of Ukraine are based on lies, in another extraordinary attack on the country's military and political leadership.
Prigozhin, a key ally of Putin, in a video posted Friday, contradicted the public explanations for the war, including the central claim made by Putin that the 2022 invasion was necessary to prevent an attack from Ukraine.
Since launching the war, Putin has painted it as a defensive operation to protect Russia. He's claimed it was needed to stop imminent large-scale attacks from Ukraine on largely Russian-speaking eastern regions in Donbas that Russia has occupied since 2014.
But in his video address, Prigozhin, whose fighters have played a leading role in the war, said that was not true and there had been no imminent risk of attack from Ukraine.
"The ministry of defense now is trying to deceive society, the president, and tell a story there was insane aggression from Ukraine and that they intended to attack us with the whole NATO bloc," Prigozhin said.
"The Special Military Operation that began on Feb. 24 was started for completely different reasons," he said.
Prigozhin also said in Friday's video that the two goals Putin announced at the start of the war— the "demilitarization" and "de-Nazification" of Ukraine—were "pretty stories."
Instead, he blamed Shoigu, the defense ministry and a "clan of oligarchs" for starting the war. He accused Shoigu of seeking glory and wanting "to rob" Ukraine and divide up its assets.
Prigozhin's attacks are extraordinary in Russia, where public criticism of the authorities risks harsh punishment. Since the war began last year, criticism of the military leadership has become a criminal offense.
Prigozhin did not directly attack Putin in the video, instead claiming the president was being deceived by his generals and other figures around him. In reality though, Putin—not Shoigu—has taken the lead in making the claims around Donbas and de-Nazification the central justifications of the war, reciting them in his speech declaring his "Special Military Operation."
The implicit picture Prigozhin gave of Putin as weak and out of touch was also remarkable, implying he was manipulated by a clan of wealthy businessmen around him and lied to by his military. The war, as described by Prigozhin, was not about protecting Russia or resisting NATO expansion, but instead greed.
Dear Ryan,
As I listened to the discourses of Putin, I was very impressed by his capacity to analyze and explain. I do not find credible the portrayal of Putin as a weak leader manipulated by generals and others.
Putin’s justifications of the special military operation were only secondarily based on projections of future developments, such as a Ukrainian attack on Russa. They were based on the previous conduct of NATO and Ukraine, facts that at the time were not emphasized or known in the West, but since that time have been confirmed by analysts from the West and the Third World, namely, NATO territorial expansion, US involvement in Ukrainian politics, systemic attacks on the Russian civilian population in Ukraine, and disregard for the Minsk accords.
In the United States, we are accustomed to politicians who pretend to support the people as they defend the interests of the elite. This has cultivated a political culture of cynicism with respect to the words of politicians. But such a situation of structurally supported lying is not universally the case. In many cases in the world, political leaders are in fact defending the causes that they proclaim to be supporting, and some become skilled at offering good explanations in defense of the cause. My sense is that Putin represents sectors that seek to restore Russian national honor, not only in defending Russian interests on its western border, but also in developing cooperative relations with nations that are seeking their sovereignty in opposition to Western imperialism.
The corporate media cannot speak with legitimacy before the Third World. The episode strikes me as an effort by the Western corporate elite and political establishment to destabilize Russia, using the techniques that have been used against several countries in the unconventional war of the last decade, which includes the support of key internal actors, when possible.
Regards,
Charles