• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wait, am I reading this right that the plane was shot down by russian air defence? If this is backed up at all by anything like a russian source, then this will just further enforce option that russia can not be trusted to do anything it says and that putin is weak and threatened (both are true but I thought the kremlin would at least try to say/show otherwise).

    How does russia keep messing up this bad? I am constantly shocked and awed.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, a pointless one that makes them look like predictable idiots. Most will not be unhappy at his death and those that would be are on russia’s side of this conflict. This (if it is what it looks like now) is like making a martyr just for assholes.

          • Elroy_Berdahl@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Putin is killing people and the purpose of the window assassinations is meant to be clearly not an accident. The whole point is to send a message, not to try and fool people.

    • JohnBrownsBussy2 [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand the logic here. When the putsch occured and then ignomously fizzled out, I saw Putin as weak for letting Pringles walk out with a (relative) slap on the wrist. Taking Prigo out of the picture was overdue. Obviously, anyone would feel threatened by an semi-autonomous mercenary army, so removing its leadership and breaking it up is just a rational course of action that probably should have been done sooner from that POV

      • ahornsirup@artemis.camp
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Putin absolutely couldn’t let Prigozhin walk, nobody could have. It’s not just about the semi-autonomous mercenary army, if a government lets someone get away with an attempted coup d’état they’d effectively encourage others to give it their best shot as well because there was no effective punishment. Assassination is, well, a very Russian approach to the issue, but every government on this planet would have taken some form of action.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You are absolutely right. The US would have an armed coup leader strung up so fast. Maybe not assassination style, but there would most definitely be a quick trial and execution.

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is the method used that has me baffled, if this happened as reported then they did not even try for any sort of plausible deniability.

          • ahornsirup@artemis.camp
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not really surprised. They got more and more open about their assassination attempts for years. They’re not meant to covertly get rid of enemies, they’re very public warnings to other dissidents. It’s rule by fear.

            • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Russian assassination are pretty clear. Anyone with half a brain can put the pieces together, but there is just enough plausible deniability that there cannot be direct retaliation legally or politically. It is a clear threat but just barely veiled enough to avoid legitimate retaliatory action via legal or international responses.

              • Do you think if Putin goes on the record during his next q&a saying “little Ehrmantrotsky here just got what he deserved lol” that there’s any chance the RU ‘legal’ system is coming after him?? Shit I don’t know how to post pics here yet but really

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If they took him out before the deal was made sure, this soon after just shows weakness and a lack of credibility. They did the equivalent to getting into a bar fight, talking it out instead and then in front of every one sucker punching the other guy.

        • Zrc [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          44
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          you know you don’t have to forcibly try to interpret every event as a sign of Russian weakness

          • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Losing multiple cities to a tiny domestic invading force of mercenaries after completely losing control of said force due to lack of command discipline, and finally only being able to force them to disband by threatening the families of the mercenaries involved isn’t exactly a sign of strength, though, is it? It’s not exactly what we’d expect of a professional modern military.

            It would be like if Erik Prince took his Blackwater army and started marching on Washington, capturing towns along the way, and the US army was helpless to stop them until the American government threatened to hunt down and kill the family members of Blackwater mercenaries.

            That would be considered unusual, and not really a sign of political or military strength.

            • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If Erik Prince marched Blackwater through some American cities and – instead of sending the U.S. military to start a hot war on its own soil – American leadership pressured Prince and Blackwater to go home, would you be calling the president weak for not turning Virginia into a battlefield?

              • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I would think American leadership completely dysfunctional if they allowed that situation to occur. If they did not have enough command authority to trust that the US military wouldn’t confront Prince with immediate and overwhelming force when ordered, the US would be a laughingstock. The scenario is borderline unimaginable in a developed country with anything resembling a modern political infrastructure.

                Don’t get me wrong. I love Russia. I was originally trained as a Sovietologist, when that was still a thing you could be an -ologist of. I could talk for hours about strategic weapons systems and Russian prep for NBC warfare and what the politics in the Kremlin were like under the troika approach and why the fascistic tendencies of Putin in rejecting Russian political history in favor of personal enrichment and plundering the nation have irrevocably broken Russian politics.

                But that’s for another day. Putin responded the way dictators in developing nations do, not like someone who actually has command and control over their modern military forces. I mean, it’s a Russian tradition to threaten the families of people who publicly disagree with leadership. In the US, the forces brought to bear against Blackwater’s attempted putsch would have been so overwhelming that his own men would have arrested him. But as much as I hate Blackwater and think Prince should probably be in prison for war crimes, their cadre was recruited from a different class of people than Wagner.

                • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  the US military wouldn’t confront Prince with immediate and overwhelming force

                  You realize that’s the worst-case scenario of the incident we’re talking about, right? A sane leader would want to avoid starting a pitched battle in their backyard at all costs, and that’s entirely independent of speculation about control over the military.

                  The scenario is borderline unimaginable in a developed country with anything resembling a modern political infrastructure.

                  We had a half-assed putsch of our own not even three years ago.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            They were losing a war to a bunch of tractors and their flagship was sunk by a country without a navy.

            It’s not Russian weakness, it’s Russian stupidity.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      then this will just further enforce option that russia can not be trusted to do anything it says and that putin is weak and threatened

      If they let him live, they’re weak. If they kill him, they’re weak.

      During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.

      parenti-hands

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The USSR is not the russian federation and the later is an oligarchy. Why do you think such cold war arguments (that over simplify) have some sort of play in this conflict?

        I also noticed you skated right on by the “can not be trusted” part of my quoted text.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          35
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you think I’m talking about the USSR, or about how American propaganda cultivates the mentality of “they are wrong no matter what they do”?

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your entire argument was about the soviet union and its cold war relationship with the US. I have had it up to my nipples here on how fixated you all are on the US, I am not from the US, I don’t like the US, I am sick of somehow having to explain to people who apparently think the US is evil but simultaneously think the world revolves around it.

            WE GET IT YOU ARE AMERICAN AND YOU ARE DIFFERENT BUT LIKE MOST AMERICANS CAN NOT STAND WHEN SOMETHING IS NOT ABOUT YOU.

            • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The quote is from “inventing reality by michael parenti”. the cold war is an EXAMPLE, the authors POINT is that media will interpret literally ANY EVENT in a bad way to make enemies look morally inferior and bad.

              • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But I am not media, the post I made is my honest take, and in this case the media stating this news is wagner and the russian state. How does this wall of text help me understand my apparent flaw in my statement?

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If this is backed up at all by anything like a russian source

      The Guardian is reporting this:

      The cause of the crash was not immediately clear, but Prigozhin’s longstanding feud with the military and the armed uprising he led in June would give ample motive to the Russian state for revenge. Media channels linked to Wagner quickly suggested that a Russian air defence missile had shot down the plane.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/aug/23/russia-ukraine-war-live-updates-drones-downed-moscow#top-of-blog

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I am hoping we get more info from anyone else then Wagner group soon.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No but the agreement being broken that was created though Belarus does.

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sorry I do want to talk about the other broken treaties but I think you replied to the wrong comment.

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the implied argument is that if Putin is untrustworthy and if you’re implying that means that he can’t be trusted to comply with agreements made with Ukraine, then we need to look at historic agreements between Russia and Ukraine. Two recent agreements between them include Minsk I and II. Ukraine, not Russia, violated both.

                • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Both sides might have violated the first Minsk agreement. As to who violated it first? My understanding was that Ukraine did. Eventually it broke down. As for the second, it depends whether you consider an omission as bad as an action. Ukraine violated Minsk II by ignoring it, which led to the SMO: https://macmillan.yale.edu/news/frustrated-refusals-give-russia-security-guarantees-implement-minsk-2-putin-recognizes-pseudo. Interestingly, France and Germany were part of these talks and officials have stated that they only ever intended to delay a war to better arm Ukraine; i.e. the NATO/Ukrainian side never intended to honour the agreement from the beginning.

                  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What did Ukraine do to violate the agreement? From all I can read there is not much short of re arming with nukes that Ukraine could even do to break the agreement (Minsk I). And what do you mean ignoring the second one?

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh I am sure he is just fine with it, but it does not really give any confidence to anyone entering into any agreement with russia with a 3rd nation brokering (say a ceasefire).

    • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The capitol riot was a threat to our precious democracy! / prigozhin’s coup attempt shows how weak putler is!

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am lost and this is a reply to my own statement. May I ask you to expand on what a “lib” is, how I erred to be labelled as one, and finally how it is you think I care about aesthetics?

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can’t speak for anyone else but I may be able to answer this.

          A lib is a liberal, someone who is pro-capital, not an anti-capitalist (very little overlap with how liberal tends to be defined in ordinary language in the US). Optics, relating to how people see the event, is idealism not materialism. Liberalism is idealist, unlike Marxism, which is materialist.

          The dig at liberalism and aesthetics is likely a critique of the implication that what this looks like has much to do with the material reality. That’s an aesthetic argument. It doesn’t matter what this looks like because the optics don’t affect the material relations. Someone who elevates the optics at the expense of the material relations is making an idealist, likely a liberal argument.

          Hence the comment embodying an aesthetic argument of the kind that liberals often make.

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, thank you, but what in my comment was at the expense of the material relations?

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re welcome. I’m glad you’re taking this in the spirit in which it’s intended. When Marxists criticise idealism, the target is the liberal world outlook, not the individual.

              By implication, really. Focusing on what people think of Russia’s/Putin’s trustworthiness rather than on it’s record or the factors that would keep it honest, so to speak. It’s Ukraine that violated Minsk, apparently prompted by France, Germany, and ‘NATO’. Looking at the optics, that seems a little more duplicitous than assassinating someone who attempted a coup (if this was an assassination and if what happened before can be called a coup).

              Would I trust a single person, e.g. Putin to uphold an international agreement? It doesn’t matter. It’s not a one-man show. War is expensive and the longer it goes on for the more expensive it becomes, in support as well as the cost of arms, soldiers, etc.

              Nobody has to trust Putin. An agreement would be maintained because material factors require it to be maintained. What westerners think it’s by-the-by. (I’m assuming you’re not Russian as you were asking about Russian sources—I’m not asking you to confirm or deny as I don’t want you to dox yourself; I’m just trying to give an answer that makes sense from the available evidence.)

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please guide me on this, other wise these are just vague statements that make us both look silly.

            • khannie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re pissing in the wind trying to get anything from a Tankie unfortunately.

              Jumps in, stirs shit, refuses to elaborate, leaves.