More on the Prigozhin reality vs MSN / Nat-sec Nutsack tales

First is the catalogue of issues laid out by Jack Rasmus. They include:

1. Prig's own contract with Russia's Ministry of Defense not being renewed, so he was about to be out megamillions;
2. His alleged meeting in Africa a few months ago with US and UK intelligence sources;
3. The MoD's discovery of this just before Prig's mutiny; and
4. The timing of this related to the launch of Ukraine's "vaunted" counteroffensive.

Assuming No. 2 is true, and 3 and 4 thus following, it's no wonder that Putin talked about "traitors." And, does Prig really think he'll stay alive long? As of Monday, there were rumors he was no longer visible. But, see below for the newest rumors.

Although Rasmus doesn't spell it out, it seems clear that much of Prig's blather about the military, at least as it worsened in the last few months, could itself be seen in the service of No. 2.

As for the future? Rasmus, like yours truly and many others who are honest, know we are now at "frozen war" status. Ukraine can't break through, but Russia doesn't have the power for a major extension of its lines, either. But, with the air and artillery edge, it can shell and bomb cities.

And, I wonder how much this all ties in with the Track Two, or Track 1.5 to be precise, backdoor diplomacy revealed earlier this week, which I discussed yesterday.

From there, we go to Rob Urie, and the background of a century of Western animus toward Russia. He says that Prig's challenging of Putin's raison d'etre for the war sounds like it came from the CIA Factbook. He also says that any US foreknowledge of the mutiny or whatever makes it look like a Maidan moment. More on that foreknowledge, also hinted at by Rasmus, is from the WaPost, linked by Urie. Was there more than foreknowledge? As in, encouragement? Incitement? Even assistance, to the degree that could be offered on short notice? 

Urie concludes by looking at Warmonger Joe's post-Prig comments, and says the bottom line is the West remains committed to fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. That sentiment I'm sure is supported by Besotted Philosopher Jonathan M.S. Pearce and the other NOT secular humanist atheists at Only Sky.

Next, remaining with Counterpunch, is Jeffrey St. Clair's Roaming Charges of a week ago. He notes that the war can't truly be won by either Russia or Ukraine, but that it might not be possible for either side to fully lose. That starts with Putin surely facing ongoing guerilla war in whatever Ukrainian lands he still holds.

From inside Russia, Boris Kagarlitsky lays out four basic terms for peace. But, can they be met? St. Clair notes that both Brazil's Lula and South Africa's Ramphosa have been rebuffed, and that China's Xi benefits more from an ongoing frozen war. And, Putin would reject No. 3, the abandonment not only of the Donbas but also Crimea. So would I. If you have Putin pull back to pre-invasion lines but staying in the Donbas, and certainly the Crimea, I would accept that, if tied with the other three? Would Putin? Maybe. Would Zelensky? No, and therein lies naivete from a modified Kagarlinsky.

To riff on Max Planck's bon mot about the only way for a radical new scientific theory to get acceptance being the deaths of enough old scientists? Possibly the only way peace happens in the Russia-Ukraine war is the demise of both Putin and Zelensky.

And, just before this was going to post, but after I'd written most of it, we get a new plot twist, or new to me as of a day ago!

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, who negotiated the exile deal for Prigozhin, says he is is in Russia as far as he knows and definitely NOT in Belarus. Putin's spox, Dmitri Peskov blathered away on this possibility with a "we don't track people" comment, which is bullshit, given the raid on Prig's mansion.

Did the West spirit him out? Or, is he on the CIA dime, now as an agent provocateur inside Russia?