Reports from Russia Make Clear There Was No “Wagner Mutiny”
Reports from Russia Make Clear There Was No “Wagner Mutiny”
Paul Craig Roberts
Reports from Russia have clarified what the alleged “Prigozhin Mutiny” was all about. The Russian military brass told Prigozhin that his independent Wagner group would be incorporated into the Russian military as of July 1 and be subject to the chain of command. Prigozhin and his commanders rejected this and saw it as an act of envy of the Wagner Group’s success compared to Russian Army units. The alleged “march on Moscow” was a protest to get Putin’s attention, not an attempt to overthrow Putin or the government.
On June 29 Putin met with Prigozhin and his commanders for several hours where the Wagner commanders gave their version of events and expressed their commitment to MotherRussia. Having witnessed the Wagner Group’s effectiveness in battle, Putin was desirous of keeping the Wagner Group on the front line in Ukraine. The Belarus president, Lukashenko, also wanted the unit and invited them to Belarus.
Prigozhin and his commanders agreed to be incorporated into the Russian chain of command. There is no information whether Putin met Prigozhin’s demand/request for a more competent Russian general staff and a more determined effort to bring the conflict to a victorious conclusion.
Clearly, no move has been made against Prigozhin. He is a billionaire Russian businessman separate from his Wagner Group, and no moves have been made against his business.
Now, compare these facts with the amazingly stupid accounts given by the entirety of the US and UK media, politicians, and alleged “Russian experts.” Do you remember the headlines: “Prigozhin marches on Moscow,” “Putin’s Last Days,” “Putin damaged by mutiny,” “Weakened, will Putin now be overthrown”?
It was obvious to anyone with a bit of intelligence that it could not possibly have been a military mutiny to overthrow Putin. The military brass, the media, and Putin’s aides told him it was a mutiny before he spoke with Lukashenko and Prigozhin.
As long as the media reports news as its ideological wishes and official narratives instead of facts, we will live in a fictional existence.
Menace In Three Parts
Menace In Three Parts
Paul Craig Roberts
A person can sometimes learn a lot from car magazines. I learned three things from the May-June issue of Hagerty’s Drivers Club.
One was that Preston T. Tucker was about to change the automobile world with his Tucker, a “Car of Tomorrow.” His car surpassed Detroit in every respect–style, engineering, performance, and it was competitively priced. So a corrupt Detroit teamed up with a corrupt US senator, Homer Ferguson of Michigan, a corrupt SEC, and a corrupt journalist to put Tucker out of business. So much for the free market and free competition narrative they teach in economics.
Senator Ferguson had the War Assets Administration block Tucker’s acquisition of a steel plant even though Tucker was the high bidder and won the competition. Then a corrupt journalist, Drew Pearson, launched a smear campaign against Tucker that cut the value of Tucker’s company’s stock price in half and ended Tucker’s access to financing. Then the SEC brought false charges against Tucker and a grand jury indicted Tucker and his associates for mail fraud, conspiracy, and SEC regulation violations. A judge voided the Tucker Corporation’s lease on the Dodge plant where he was producing his cars. Then the sealed SEC report was leaked to the press and the rest of the irresponsible American media jumped on Tucker. A corrupt prosecution called 73 witnesses against Tucker, but the jury found Tucker and his associates innocent of all 31 counts. In those days juries were still capable of thought, and they saw through the frame up of Tucker and the intentional destruction of his business. But Detroit succeeded in putting Tucker out of business by the time that the 50th Tucker was produced. Today the best examples of the remaining Tuckers sell for $2.5 million.
The second thing I learned is that the new trend in auto style is the menacing look. I have previously observed how unattractive and boring car/SUV styling is compared to the beautiful styling and two-tone color combinations of the 1950s and 1960s. The choice today is hideous in black, white, or gray and sometimes an off-red. Recently Dodge’s retro muscle cars and Corvette have added some style and color to the roadways, but generally cars are a depressing sight.
It is my opinion that the abandonment of style and color in cars and clothes are what is responsible for the rise in depression and pill taking. You seldom see a well dressed person anymore or a woman decked out in finery.
The third thing I learned is that men continue to have their roles in life taken from them and given to women. For example, General Motors’ sports car racing manager is a woman, Laura Klauser. Probably she is a good manager, but that is not the point. Men and women were once defined by their roles. Today there are no more roles for men. Men have had their roles taken away and given to women. Women have abandoned their roles to take men’s roles. It is a sad situation for men. The man is no longer even the breadwinner who brings home the bacon. Indeed, his wife probably makes more than he does. So what is his role? The answer seems to be: to get out of the way of women. Are we creating a society in which men have no definable role?
No comments:
Post a Comment