The rebellion of the “Wagner” PMC was officially announced with insulting epithets against Putin personally and hints about the need to change the government in the country; Moscow’s sudden loss of control over Rostov-on-Don and the positive attitude of the townspeople towards the rebels, despite the fact that the Kremlin declared them criminals and traitors; the rapid and unimpeded advance of “Wagner’s columns” to Moscow, which could not be stopped even by airstrikes on Russian infrastructure; and then their equally lightning-fast reversal and completion of the “putsch” with security guarantees from the Kremlin for the “main putschist”, i.e. Prigozhin – all this happened beyond the expectations of the West.
Now there is a debate about these events in the Western expert and political circles, but at least one point has full support: it is the opinion that Putin’s authority has received a very strong blow . The myth about his role as a guarantor of stability in Russia collapsed in one day. The same thing happened with the myth about the power and authority of the central government – it turned out that even in the regions of the European part of the Russian Federation, this is not the case.
As a result, Western experts and politicians have returned to the public field the assumption that Russia in its current borders is not necessarily eternal and inviolable.
Europe saw the “fragility” of Russia
“These events have shown that the Russian state is weakened… A major nuclear power may be entering an era of political instability and internal fragility,” these cautious characteristics sounded on Monday at the press conference of the EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell.
On this day, he chaired the meeting of the EU Council on Foreign Affairs, which was planned and was supposed to consider completely different issues – but life changed the plans. The “Wagner rebellion” became one of the key topics of the ministers’ discussion.
And Borrell repeated several times the theses about the ” internal instability ” of Russia as a new key threat to the world and the ” fragility ” of this state – but he did not specify what he meant by these terms.
As expected, the EU did not make any decisions on this issue. The ministers only agreed that the EU is not ready for the development of events that Borrell hid behind subtle hints, so Europe now urgently needs to prepare a strategy of action in case the “fragility” of the Russian Federation develops.
And also – it was announced that all the scenarios are now on the table .
“It takes time to develop a strategy given this state of affairs. We are working on it. I think you can say that everyone is analyzing the possible scenarios that could develop. But we don’t have a ready-made strategy,” Borrell added.
Here it is appropriate to mention that in the matter of geopolitical planning, the European Union has significantly weakened the withdrawal of Great Britain from its membership. London is used to thinking geopolitically and therefore much more accurate signals came from there – which probably mean the same thing as the “fragility” mentioned by Borrell.
There, the media reported that they have long considered the real scenario of the collapse of Russia.
Information about this was conveyed to the media on behalf of “government sources” on Sunday, after the failure of the Prigozhyn “putsch”.
“Britain should prepare for a sudden collapse of Russia after a failed coup attempt, internal government estimates warn ,” The Times reported. At the same time, several British commentators and experts came out with similar messages and statements.
Their tonality can be conveyed by the phrase: the disintegration of Russia is not guaranteed, but now this scenario seems real and it is necessary to prepare for it. Some expressed themselves even more radically. “Although Prigozhin has turned his people around, Russia is still on the verge of disintegration,” The Telegraph claims .
QUOTE “This is the beginning of the end for Vladimir Putin,” the newspaper claims.
An important point, which also accompanies the statements in Britain, is that the West lacks information and understanding of Russia
“(In 1991) Western “Kremlinologists” could not predict the end of the Soviet Union, because they knew little about the hidden rivalry, enmity of influential groups in it… Can something similar happen in today’s Russia, when it is ruled by the “lame” Putin? After all, in Buryatia , the Republic of Sakha, Dagestan, Chechnya, Kamchatka Krai, Koma, Novosibirsk, Arkhangelsk and Tatarstan have independence movements and local elites… are preparing for the opportunity to break with the defeated and disgraced Moscow regime,” The Telegraph reflects.
Not understanding Russia
If Britain has long been interested in events in Russia, the state machine and the expert community drew conclusions from it, proposed policies, etc., then in continental Europe the lack of expertise has become an even bigger problem.
The failure of the Western European attitude towards Moscow, attempts to “attract” it with the help of trade and dialogue has been obvious for a long time, it is recognized even in Berlin.
But there is still an unwillingness of many capitals to accept the fact that the states of Eastern Europe (such as the Baltic members of the EU) have the best understanding of Russia. Instead, their opinions are still perceived as radical – although they most clearly reflect reality.
(By the way, we advise you to read or watch the interview of the newly elected president of Latvia , who, among other things, talked about the scenarios for post-war Russia.)
Against this background, the odious Hungarian Minister Peter Sijarto began collecting bonuses.
He admitted that at the meeting of the heads of foreign affairs on Monday, he tried to convince his colleagues that Hungary is a unique asset for the EU, because both he and his boss Orbán communicate directly with the Russian leadership (breaking the informal European blockade at the same time – but now Szijjarto set about proving that he does it for the good).
The Hungarian minister boasted to his colleagues that during Saturday he had telephone conversations with the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Belarus, and thanks to this, they say, he knew about the agreements between Lukashenka and Prigozhin even before they were announced. The ministers could not verify this information – they could only trust Peter Sijarto.
There was also a lack of understanding overseas – although there, as they claim, they knew about the preparation of the rebellion in advance and shared this information with the British (perhaps there is a reason for more frank thoughts in London about the possibility of the collapse of the Russian Federation) – but still even the Americans, according to the signs of their actions , did not understand what “Wagner’s campaign” could lead to when it began.
Dangerous decay
In the political and diplomatic circles of the USA, however, the topic of the possible disintegration of the Russian Federation is still considered a “taboo”.
This is quite logical, considering how zealous Moscow is to any US statements about itself, looking for evidence that the “Washington Regional Committee” is behind any of Russia’s troubles.
But in the expert community, this topic was discussed from time to time even before the “Prygozhin march” – but there was no unity regarding it and there is none.
Along with those who spoke about the near inevitability of this (the disintegration of Russia is identified as one of the main scenarios based on a survey of experts by the authoritative Atlantic Council), there were also those who strongly resented the very discussion of such a prospect.
This is currently the dominant opinion in the US, especially in the White House.
After all, for Ukraine and the countries of Eastern Europe, the collapse of the Russian Federation, although it carries risks, may mean the disappearance of a dangerous empire that has attacked its neighbors many times and – if it is not properly punished after the current war – will surely do it again.
And for the United States, and above all for Biden’s security adviser, Jake Sullivan, the collapse of Russia is a nuclear danger and the probable strengthening of China, which is the number one competitor and strategic enemy of the United States.
It is somewhat reminiscent of the situation 35 years ago, when the Soviet Union, the number one enemy of the West, was slowly falling apart, but the US authorities refused to see it and resisted it. In particular, by convincing the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine, not to take drastic steps and not to leave the Union. History has proven that this policy of Washington was clearly wrong.
Oddly enough, the events of the 90s can now help Ukraine.
Because the opinion that the USA should not repeat the mistake of that time is being heard more and more loudly, especially after the failed “Prygozhin putsch”.
“The West must learn from the mistakes it made in the 1990s, when, out of fear of instability, it did not want to recognize the independence of the new states that emerged on the territory of the Soviet Union. At that time, Western politicians naively hoped for democratic governance and economic reforms in Russia, which never happened,” the authoritative Foreign Policy magazine recalled after the events of the weekend , suggesting that even now the democratization of the supposed fragments of Russia is much more realistic.
Serhiy Sydorenko, the editor of “European Pravda”
Європейська правда
