benami203_GAVRIIL GRIGOROVSPUTNIKAFP via Getty Images_putin

Politics

Prigozhin es un síntoma

Jun 29, 2023 Shlomo Ben-Ami

TEL AVIV – A veces se trata de hacer creer que los golpes militares representan la vanguardia de la modernización y el cambio. Otras, como en el de Chile en 1973 y el fracasado intento de 1981 en España, cuentan con el impulso de la nostalgia por dictaduras pasadas. La mayoría responden, al menos en parte, a los reclamos de grupos poderosos.

El cuasigolpe abortado por el caudillo ruso Yevgeny Prigozhin, por el contrario, parece haberse debido solo a su deseo personal de prestigio y poder. Y aunque abandonó rápidamente el avance hacia Moscú junto con los mercenarios del grupo Wagner, que dirige, expuso el deterioro institucional del régimen pretorianista del presidente ruso Vladímir Putin.

Prigozhin dejó así en claro que más que una amenaza para el régimen de Putin es un síntoma de su inherente fragilidad. Básicamente, es alguien leal que, según las palabras del presidente ruso, «tiene ambiciones e intereses personales desmedidos». Debido al aumento de su popularidad, que amenazaba el monopolio de Putin sobre la atención del país, Prigozhin sencillamente se tornó demasiado poderoso como para no ponerle freno.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 Comments on this article

Robert Wolff Jul 2, 2023

Ukraine War Strategy:

In response to Russian threats, including the deployment of Nuclear Tactical weapons in Belarus, I am proposing the deployment of Nuclear Tactical EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) weapons under control of the Zelensky Ukrainian Government by the US, which could be used to destroy Russian communications to Russian troops in Ukraine (fries all electronics including communications equipment used by Russian troops inside Ukraine that are not “Nuclear Hardened”).

The earmarked (by US) use of these tactical nuclear EMP weapons would be to destroy communications between the Kremlin and their military aggressors inside Ukraine, to shut off communications that direct Russian forces’ activities inside Ukraine from the Kremlin. They would only need to be deployed against Russian forces and equipment now inside Ukrainian Territory, and need not be used against the Kremlin or other Russian territories (which have recently been attacked by Ukrainian drones).

The elimination of communications between Russian forces inside Ukrainian territories and the Kremlin would eliminate the control of the Kremlin over Russian forces in Ukraine which are vying for control over sacred Ukrainian territories.

This implementation of tactical EMP nuclear weapons by the West would be a reasonable tit-for-tat response to the deployment of Russian tactical missiles in Belarus, and would be inline with the MAD (mutual destruction) scenario developed by French Intellectuals that only a “Balance of Power” can prevent Nuclear War between Russia and the West.

The book I read when I was at Rand Corporation, written by Henry Kissinger, supports the above strategy (he said the use of tactical nuclear weapons was not the same as the use of strategic nuclear weapons aimed at “Population Kill”; when I was at Rand in 1976 we were targeting Moscow with 5 Megaton Bombs on 5-mile centers to destroy whole populations, not just Russian communications abilities).

This is a whole new wargame than the previous Cold War with Russia that resulted in Salt I and Salt II agreements on arms reductions between the US and Russia. Today, military victory in Ukraine by the West is really about cutting off communications between Russian authorities in the Kremlin from their military troops in Ukraine. When the Kremlin can no longer direct military activities of their troops in Ukraine, the war could soon be over.
- Adam Huszar Jul 4, 2023
  
  • Your suggestion (give nukes and 'keys' to Zelinsky) with the purpose to initiate a first strike nuclear (EMP) attack on the biggest nuclear power on earth (the same one having obvious difficulties winning the conventional war against the West) sounds to be a dangerous one (mildly put). Such attack would be a clear opportunity (invitation?) for the Russians to retaliate with the long rattled nuclear saber (tactical nuclear weapons launched not necessarily from Belarus) providing a clear and devastating (for Ukraine) military victory to the Russians. Arguably there will be no “art.5” invoked as a NATO member state initiated the nuclear escalation, and none of the European nuke holders will be eager to risk catastrophic destruction (from retaliation) by allowing the US to nuclear attack from their soil.
  • Using these nukes only on the occupied territories, would arguably not be acceptable to the Russians as they have already legally annexed these territories so they can consider it as nuclear attack against the motherland, unless they move the red line (again) and decide not to retaliate. Some are concerned that the Russian president’s weakening (as promoted by the West) following the Prygozyn mutiny, reduces his marge de manoeuvre around the red line, forcing him to act.
  • While eliminating the communication among the Russians, one can argue that the communications between Ukrainians will be affected too. Would this scenario benefit the Ukrainian forces in any way?
  • Based on the (as stated by Russia) fact that the Lukashenka regime does not have the launch keys, your suggestion of equivalence between Belorussian deployed tactical nukes to your suggested deployment is fundamentally false. Precedents established by the USA make the Belorussian deployment accepted under the nuclear NPT (even though several states contest it since 2005 (?) when US started deploying its nukes in European countries). The action suggested by you is a clear step towards nuclear proliferation by arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons.
  • While opinions are arguably split on how much the civilized world should rely on H. Kissinger’s opinion/suggestions regarding (nuclear?) mass destruction in sense of avoiding these genocides, I remain impressed by the opinion of ‘a cook’ (among other remarkable things), Anthony Bourdain. He seemingly eating a lot of very spice food in various corners of the world must have been a person knowing his shtuff; it worth looking it up simply searching for ‘Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to’
  • As already mentioned loss of communication will be likely for both sides, permanent or temporary depending of level of damage/protection. One can argue that Ukrainians will be fatally impacted from loosing NATO targeting support, satellite based internet communications (not sure how much Musk’s hardware is EMP protected), information on takeoff and landing of Russian air force, troop movements etc. Russians often tie US/UK reconnaissance flights to behind front line attacks against Russian targets, suggesting that the spy planes provide direct targeting data to long range ammo.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/TxxHBjres

Prigozhin es un síntoma

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Prigozhin es un síntoma

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification