Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the claims that Prigozhin launched a NATO funded coup attempt to overthrow Putin are true.
Proponents of that hypothesis, who call Prigozhin a "traitor", are claiming that he should have been killed or arrested, and it was weakness on Putin's part to let him go free.
No.
It wasn't weakness.
1. Russia has no death penalty. Prigozhin couldn't have been just summarily given a bullet to the head.
2. Prigozhin was not in the convoy headed to Moscow, he stayed in Rostov. This means:
(a) He would either have to be arrested somehow after fighting a city battle past 6000 highly experienced and heavily armed Wagner soldiers and brought to trial, or
(b) The military HQ in Rostov bombed to rubble to kill him.
Any of this would have resulted in massive numbers of civilian and regular troops being killed. And the regular forces going to Rostov were Chechens. Chechens killing Russians in a Russian city? It would be a NATOstani wet dream. It would've immediately made divisions between Russians and Chechens flare up again.
In short, trying to kill Prigozhin is exactly what the NATOstanis would have loved. This way Putin got rid of Prigozhin without turning anyone against Russia.
Seems a good way to deal with it to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Full comment moderation is enabled on this site, which means that your comment will only be visible after the blog administrator (in other words, yours truly) approves it. The purpose of this is not to censor dissenting viewpoints; in fact, such viewpoints are welcome, though it may lead to challenges to provide sources and/or acerbic replies (I do not tolerate stupidity).
The purpose of this moderation is to eliminate spam, of which this blog attracts an inordinate amount. Spammers, be warned: it takes me less time to delete your garbage than it takes for you to post it.
Proceed.