I just don’t agree that this strengthened the state/Putin. In a way, if someone like Prigozhin without any realistic chance tries a coup and gets away with his life (at least for now) doesn’t this show how weak Russia currently is?

It has embarrassed Russia for sure, the global south in particular supports Russia a lot and there will be some respect lost through it but that's not going to change much about why they support Russia (serves their interests to see a multipolar world emerge) so they'll continue to do so.

While it may have caused foreign embarrassment that's not really important in terms of "strength" of the state. The strength of a state is determined by the political and military powers within it supporting it and its institutions. Literally all of them did so which has ultimately served to resolve the question "is it possible for Russia to collapse?" with a resounding "No" at this time.

By comparison and to do a big whatabout - I would say that the US has a greater amount of division and potential for political and financial factions to attempt to tear it apart. I however don't think that there is anyone quite as bold or stupid as Prigo to overestimate their support or underestimate the size of the support you need to tear apart and successfully coup a country like that though.

Like I keep pointing out, the gang of eight were an incredibly powerful coalition that failed. They serve as an example of the kind of coalition you really need to pull this shit off and they make Prigo look like a bit of a joke by comparison. Part of me wonders if members of the Russian intelligence community deliberately led him on into believing he had support in order to create this outcome, but that's pure speculation. The man isn't entirely stupid though, so I have to wonder what exactly made him think he would have more support.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

TBH, I haven't read that much about the aftermath. I only heard some parts (e.g. the secret services) kept quiet for quite some time which suggests for me that they didn't really care either way. If everyone really supported him it does make a coup/collapse less likely. The impression I got was simply:

The support for Putin was cautious, especially in the beginning
Putins handling and Lukashenkos involvement do not convey strength thereby making everyone with power more likely to support a future coup

I also don't think the gang of eight is that diectly relatable because the SU collapsed. Here, it would simply mean replacing one president for another. In theory, a coup is as simple as a successful assasination (ignoring the successor question).

For me, it doesn't look like there is any way out for Putin. Winning the war is unrealistic at this time, would take a long time and would result in a long embargo from the west, destroying the economy even further. Losing the war will probably result in extreme protests with all the casualties that already occurred. We will see whatever happens. I assume that Prigozhin failed not because the elite support Putin but because they are even more afraid of him. I assume everyone with money wants the war to end.

And about the USA, yeah that's a bit of a whataboutism. There is a lot of division there and I think they are one bad president away from significantly worsening the situation. We will see about that too I guess.

[–] Awoo@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think we're going to end up talking past each other as we disagree and there's a few things we'd just end up repeating over and over so forgive me for skipping a chunk here. I will respond to this though:

destroying the economy even further

"Even further" is an odd choice here. The Russian economy is stronger now than before the war sanctions. The sanctions failed miserably, everything that Russia could no longer get from the west it simply gets from South East Asia (China/India mainly) and the Middle East now. Reddit thinks there was some great economic smashing of Russia but it really horribly failed.

Winning the war is unrealistic at this time, would take a long time

"Winning" here is more a question of when parties will get round a table to negotiate again. The war almost ended in April but Boris Johnson put a stop to the deal that would have done that. It could end quickly, it could also take a long time, dependent almost entirely on how long the west wants to drag it out as a proxy war for. There is also the question of whether the US and EU might pivot to a focus on China, which would also result in getting round a table to end the Ukraine war first as they simply do not have the means to focus on both at once.

And about the USA, yeah that’s a bit of a whataboutism. There is a lot of division there and I think they are one bad president away from significantly worsening the situation. We will see about that too I guess.

It's not really whatabout. It's just useful to have a comparative baseline for "division" to understand what is necessary to create and succeed in a coup. Do you think one would succeed in the US under the current conditions? What factions and groups would need to be involved? This thought experiment is useful for understanding the kind of divisions, alliances and coalitions necessary to making a coup succeed elsewhere. It helps ground your thoughts in a more material reality rather than the fantasies peddled in the media circuit.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, our views differ quite a lot. In your comment I disagree with basically every conclusion. The Russian economy is worse off, the war will end with Russia getting at most Crimea and a coup in the US is completely unrealistic as of now.

Time will tell.

[–] Awoo@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The Russian economy is worse off

What metric are you using to determine this?

the war will end with Russia getting at most Crimea

This would require the complete and total collapse of Russia and the formation of a new country. Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are legally Russia under Russian law. There is no mechanism via which they can be ceded. When everyone eventually sits down at the table they legally can not be put on it by the negotiators that form the Russian side.

I personally think Russia will take everything south of the Dnipro river then hand over the parts that are not Donbass as a political means of showing that the west won against them in some way.

Even if there were a mechanism by which these could be tabled I don't see why they would. They are winning, the counteroffensive is achieving absolutely zero, support is very low across Europe and there is very little evidence that their gains will stop.

What mechanism are you thinking of here? Serious question. How? The only way what you're claiming will happen could possibly occur is via a massive pushback, but that's clearly not happening. You'd need nato to deploy and to kick off ww3 properly.

a coup in the US is completely unrealistic as of now.

I know. But the factionalism and divisions make it more likely than in Russia at the present moment in time. That was the point, to highlight that is incredibly unrealistic to expect it to happen in Russia after we've just had a demonstration of failure with almost no division barring the tantrum that occurred.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

My comment was intended to highlight how fundamentally our views differ and not to start a discussion. I'm aware that my view is not completely neutral but I feel like your view is too different from mine to productively discuss them.

Yes, the Russian economy is doing better than expected but, obviously, a country at war with embargoes and large amounts of the workforce at the front will suffer. And yes, the current counter-offensive is not going as well as planned but the fact that Ukraine even started it and is making, albeit small, gains shows that they are at least on approximately even footing.