LIFE Should Be a Continuous Learning Experience

 

We are in the third week of the new initiative to share perceptions and ideas on current events of critical importance to the security of our country. I reflected on the reason I started the Thought for the Week. My intent was to challenge each of you to think “critically” about these events. I mean for you to not think as a “critic’, but think as an analyst. I do not hold with critics who only find fault and offer nothing positive. Teddy Roosevelt eloquently provided me with a perspective of ‘the critic’:

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt

The strategic analyst must think in terms of “realpolitik”, that is, the environment of events.

Realpolitik – a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.

The idea of subjugating moral considerations may be repugnant to some readers. However, we live in a harsh world where the moral principles vary from person to person and country to country. The analyst has to think with his or her mind, not the heart. An arduous task as each of us has internal biases and core beliefs. The analyst has to be objective, systematic, and keep emotions out of the analytic process. The analyst deals with incomplete information, information that may be inaccurate, or even designed to be deceptive. The analyst mission is to give the most accurate understanding of the issue, not one which fits a ‘narrative’ or politically convenient answer. Good analysts are seldom popular. So, my challenge to you, put on your analyst hat each week and delve deeply into the issue for that week. Think within a framework that requires intellectual discipline. This may give you conclusions which surprise you, or maybe not.

The theme for this week is about war and policy and decisions.

“Lesson learned” is a process for the military to prepare for the ‘next war’ by studying the past.

But – learning the “correct lessons” has not been easy based on the history of warfare.

Moreover, the focus on war often omits how a war actually happens. Politicians make the decisions to engage in war. The military fights the war that the politicians begin. Of course, the military and the intelligence community have significant inputs to the politicians making the decision to go to war. In the evolving events in and around the Ukraine today, Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden will make decisions which will direct the evolution of the fighting and history. Of paramount importance, Putin has a finger on the trigger to launch Russian nuclear weapons. As a ‘good analyst’ you must also note, Joe Biden has a finger on the trigger to launch American nuclear weapons. The ongoing war in the Ukraine presents the possibility that a miscalculation by one of the many involved parties could lead to a catastrophic nuclear war.

Have the politicians on both sides learned the “correct lessons”?

History suggests they have not.

We nearly stumbled into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union on three occasions during the Cold War.

The politicians failed our country miserably in the Vietnam War and again in Afghanistan.

US missile deployments in Europe during the early 1960s led the Soviets to take a risky gamble to deploy nuclear weapon-capable missiles in Cuba. The result was, two nations looked into the nuclear abyss of mutual annihilation. A US military exercise in the 1980s, Able Archer, was misinterpreted by Soviet intelligence as US preparations to launch a nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union. Miscalculations that bought the opposing nuclear forces to launch readiness, waiting for the coded message to fire their missiles.

We gradually morphed into the Vietnam War starting with our support of the French in the 1950s and then fearing the ‘domino effect’ of a communist takeover of Southeast Asia. The politicians made two monumental errors, underestimating our foe and no “end game’ for the conflict. Foremost, we failed to head the admonition of the strategic thinker, Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote this maxim:

“War is a trial of moral and physical forces by means of the latter. . . In the last analysis it is at moral, not physical strength that all military action is directed … Moral factors, then, are the ultimate determinants in war.”                                         

We failed to understand that North Vietnamese were fighting for their core belief of Vietnamese nationalism, though the historic evidence was there going back to the 1920s. We did not perceive the North Vietnamese would be totally resolute and committed to their cause. Beyond that, we had no ‘end game’ for the conflict except to escalate the fighting with more troops and weapons. 

In Afghanistan, we repeated the Vietnam debacle with minor variations. We had no ‘end game’, and it took us 20 years to figure that out. Our opponents were fighting for their religious and nationalistic beliefs.

In both examples our military fought valiantly and served with honor. If it appears that I have been harsh with politicians, you broke the code. My military bias is showing. Politicians talk, the military die.

The Ukraine conflict has brought us to another strategic crossroads – how do we avoid the miscalculation which leads the conflict to the point where we and the Russians will use nuclear weapons. A conflict where both sides become inevitable losers.

The White House appears to have no ‘end game’.

Please tune-in next week as the ‘lessons learned’ theme goes on looking back (1973 Yom Kippur War), examining where we are now in the geostrategic sphere, and for the future, what seems to be the strategic trajectory – toward an unpredictable war or to an unstable peace.

 

Originally Published 18.03.2022. Re-published with Permission from www.GaryBowser.net.

AI – An Existential Threat to Freedom

 

AI is one of the ‘hot topics’ in contemporary news. 

I assert that one word tells you all you really need to know about AI. That word is- “ARTIFICIAL”

A background thought – would you rather have “actual intelligence” or “artificial intelligence” as the basis to make your life decisions?A second background thought – AI is just complex SOFTWARE created by people who have biases and happen to write software. Stuff like WORD, WINDOWS, internet search algorithms.

You and I are inundated daily by information. Information that may be true or may not be true. And this is where the problem exists. The “not true” may be reported in error or it can be presented for a malicious purpose. Political and ideological opponents shout that the ‘other side’ is presenting “fake news’ or “misinformation”.

This “truth” challenge is the greatest and most enduring problem faced over the history of mankind. 

You and I are ‘who we are’ because of our personal beliefs – moral, ethical, religious, and yes, political. Our institutions are derived from the dominating belief systems from their communities and nations.

Rush Limbaugh stated it as – “the war of ideas”.

Joseph Goebbels, an icon of evil, the Nazi Propaganda Minister would embrace AI as the greatest tool to achieve totalitarianism. Among his many quotes we find: 

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

“A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.” 

“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”

"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it." 

"We shall reach our goal, when we have the power to laugh as we destroy, as we smash, whatever was sacred to us as tradition, as education, and as human affection." 

Do these quotes resonate with the cacophony of noise we read and hear every day?
Social media is shaping our next generation. AI can deliver messages from the Goebbels’ playbook to teens and us older folks – everyone. 

Who controls and manipulates the “beliefs” wins.

AI is a con job like Climate Change but much more insidious.

So what is my point in this AI observation, which should have been about selling my books, rather than a ramble on how fragile our freedom is when threatened by bad people using AI outputs?

My point is simple – be informed, be vigilant as to reality, think, and make up your mind – you are the custodian of your beliefs.

And by the way, buy the Cold War thriller, Not On My Watch- Nuclear Apocalypse – a fun read and some important history “truths” you did not know.

More later on the dangers of AI

Supplemental reading, Who's in Charge Here? by Ed D'Agostino.

The Cold War - Secrets Within Secrets

During the first two decades of the Cold War, the knowledge available to the American public about the threats to our country was all bad.

The US Intelligence community, the US military, and US citizens were stunned when the Soviet Union detonated an atomic bomb years ahead of the US estimate. Then the Soviets detonated a thermonuclear device years sooner than the US anticipated.

The American public was shocked and dismayed as the Soviet Union racked up technology firsts after first in the space race between the Superpowers – Soviet science seemed to be outclassing the US at every turn

August 1957, the Soviets demonstrate the first ICBM

October 1957, the Soviets launch the first space satellite

April 1961, the Soviets launch the first man into space

Americans knew about the catastrophic danger from a strategic nuclear attack and rightly feared that danger – a danger called Mutual Assured Destruction. They were frightened even more when the open press leaked classified information from National Intelligence Estimates (NIE 11-10-57 and NIE 11-5-58) suggesting that the Soviet “technical and industrial capability” would lead to a Soviet advantage over the US in the number of nuclear attack missiles – ‘the missile gap’.

At the same time, Soviet intelligence, the KGB and GRU, understood the US industrial base could outstrip the Soviet Union in a competition to produce higher quality nuclear weapons in sheer numbers.

The Soviet leadership concluded there was only one path to gain a decisive nuclear attack advantage over the US, the Soviets had to be the first to develop and deploy an effective strategic anti-missile defense.

The Soviet progress developing a strategic anti-missile defense was a secret withheld from the American public. This Soviet progress represented a far greater threat to the survival of the United States than any Soviet firsts in space or the potential missile gap.

The US intelligence community took decisive action in 1961 to deal with the technological threat from the Soviet Union.

The US intelligence community established the Foreign Technology Division (FTD), a national intelligence asset as a part of US Air Force.

Gary Bowser Books, the Peregrine Team Series, are available on Amazon!

The Cold War Between the USA and the Soviet Union – 1946- 1991

 

Why the term “Cold War?

It was simple, the term Cold War was a useful propaganda phrase for US in domestic and international politics.

The term Cold War was an invented term - politically flexible at any given time to allay fears of war, stoke anger at an enemy, prepare for war, and manage any immediate political message. The term ‘Cold War’ obfuscated the truth and dangers behind the existential threat of nuclear war.

Though the Soviet Union and the US were allies of convenience against Nazi Germany during World War II, the Soviet Union had been an implacable ideological enemy of the US since the 1917 Revolution overthrowing the Russian Czar. The USSR continued to be an enemy behind the scenes during WWII.

During WWII, Stalin directed the Soviet intelligence services, the KGB and the GRU, to conduct a massive intelligence operation to collect information about the American Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear weapon, the atomic bomb.

The Cold War was marked by incessant wars around the world: Korean War, Vietnam War, Soviet military invasions in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland to suppress political dissent, wars in the Middle East, communist “wars of national liberation” around the world, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan – there was never a time of ‘Cold’, during the Cold War.

The singular factor dominating all else during the Cold War was the potential for a strategic nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union. By the 1960s, both nations possessed a sufficient number of nuclear weapons to totally annihilate each other, and do so in a few hours. ICBM flight times between the US and the Soviet Union were 25-29 minutes after launch. Submarine launched missile flight times between the US and the Soviet Union were 5-14 minutes after launch. Bombers with nuclear weapons could reach targets in 10-14 hours. The nation-ending devastation from strategic nuclear attacks between the two nuclear superpowers generated a new phrase of terror, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

US citizens understood the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. What the US citizens did not fully understand were the secret games being played behind the senses to gain a strategic advantage for a nuclear first strike.

The US played the arms control negotiations to great advantage. The world praised the US efforts to limit the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the USSR and the US.

The US game was to limit the number of Soviet strategic weapons while the US gained attack advantage through qualitative and technological gains of US weapons capabilities. The US developed the MK-17 silo-buster reentry vehicle for the Minuteman ICBM. US ICBMs and SLBM used solid fuels for reliability and quick launch capabilities. The US multiple warhead  per strategic missile capability was superior to the Soviets. The US industrial base could outpace the USSR in production of strategic nuclear weapons.

The KGB understood these US advantages and how the US was manipulating the arms control deals. However, the international propaganda war forced the Soviet Union to negotiate arms control agreements which in the long term would be highly detrimental to the security of the USSR.

The great uncertainty rested in technological breakthroughs by one of the enemy nations.

The total inability to defend against a strategic nuclear missile strike was the profound weakness for both the US and the USSR.

‘Nuclear Missile Attack Swords of Damocles’ hung over the US and the USSR - hung by a slender thread of a technological breakthrough by one of the enemies to develop and deploy an effective strategic anti-missile system.

The reality was the USSR and the US were pouring massive resources into competing efforts to be the first to develop and deploy a strategic nuclear defense system.

Behind the scenes, an intense intelligence war raged between the Soviet Union and the US to collect information and derail the enemy strategic nuclear anti-missile defense programs.

The Foreign Technology Division super-secret Det 3 Operations Group was the technological ‘point of the spear’ for the US to combat the Soviet effort to gain a strategic attack advantage by building a strategic anti-missile system.

 

Gary Bowser Books, the Peregrine Team Series, are available on Amazon! 

What do We Know About Nuclear War -- Probably Much Less Than We Think We Do

There is much written about nuclear war from various perspectives including military, scientific, political, sociological, and ethical. I want to point out that all this writing and talking is theoretical. We have never had a nuclear war. Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. These ‘nuclear weapon’ devices captured the attention and imagination of the world. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had an explosive yield of  18 thousand tons of TNT (18 KT)  and initial casualties estimated at 140,000 killed. The atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki had an explosive yield of 20 thousand tons of TNT (20 KT) and initial casualties estimated at 74,000 killed.

The Allied bomber fire-bombing of Hamburg Germany resulted in a disputed range of deaths from 43,000-153,000. The Allied bomber fire-bombing of Dresden Germany resulted in a range of deaths from 45,000-50,000. The US bomber fire-bombing of Tokyo resulted in a range of deaths from 100,00-130,000.

The death counts above do not include deaths which followed from radiation sickness. The yield and death numbers vary between sources, but the numbers presented above are representative of accepted values.

Two conclusions are obvious. Modern weapons make it possible to kill a lot of people in a single attack, be it with hundreds of planes or a single plane and one weapon in that attack. The more significant conclusion is that politicians stand ready to order the military to make an attack which will kill tens of thousands of people in an attack.

This brings us back to –  

What Do We Know About Nuclear War?

I argue we do not “know” anything about nuclear war. We know about nuclear weapons and the physics of how these weapons deliver a combination of blast, heat, and radiation to physical and human targets. There has never been a “nuclear war” in the sense of a massive strategic nuclear exchange between nuclear armed enemies.

We have studied the nuclear war idea extensively for over 70 years. Various ‘insights’ resulted in slogans like ‘the balance of terror’ or the formal concept of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The latter was elevated to policy during the Cold War. Simply put, MAD is the idea that a full scale nuclear attack by one superpower on the other superpower would be responded to by a counterattack and both sides would be annihilated.

The analytic ‘speculation’ behind MAD is sound. The development of intercontinental missiles and sub launched missiles with high-yield warheads profoundly changed our world. A missile launched from Russia could impact a US target 25-29 minutes later. An SLBM (submarine launched ballistic missile) fired from a ballistic-missile sub hiding off the US coast could hit a US target in 4-5 minutes. An enemy missile with a very high-yield warhead (20-50 MT) in a high-altitude airburst could create an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) which would destroy virtually all systems in the US which depend on microelectronics – that is everything electronic.

INTERIM SUMMARY

The United States of America could be destroyed as a country and society in less than an hour from a full-scale nuclear attack by Russia.

Russia could be destroyed as a country and society in less than an hour from a full-scale nuclear attack by the US.

How does one execute a strategic nuclear attack?

A full-scale nuclear attack is an incredibility complex military operation. The US has a plan called the SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operations Plan). Phasing of a strategic nuclear attack has to consider the targeting priorities, weapons fratricide, and maximizing immediate effects.

The targeting priorities focus on eliminating enemy “counterforce” weapons. That is, destroying the weapons the enemy might use to counterattack you. Obviously there is a critical time window to take these enemy assets out before they can launch land-based, sub missiles, or bombers.

Fratricide concerns relate to the fact the powerful blast and radiation effects of nuclear weapon detonations could kill your own missiles before they hit enemy targets. Thus, the SIOP plans for geographic and time phasing of the missiles and bombs.

Maximizing immediate effects means, can you achieve surprise? What is the response time for the enemy to fire missiles once the enemy detects your attack? Where are the enemy ballistic missile subs? How do we avoid showing any preparedness to attack and thus alert the enemy? The Able Archer Exercise in the 1980s was misinterpreted by the Soviets as attack preparation and brought the US and USSR to the brink of nuclear war.

Now, a reality check in three areas.

Neither the US or Russia has a strategic defense against an ICBM and SLBM attack.

Neither the US or Russia has a civil defense program against an ICBM and SLBM attack.

The US declassified a closely-held classified document from 1963 which was the transcript of an “oral presentation” made to the President  by the National Security Council. The presentation discussed the threat to the US from a strategic nuclear war with Russia. The reality check is this document considered scenarios where the US would sustain casualties on the order of 63 million to 107 million dead and that does not include delayed radiation sickness deaths.

The 1963 assessment was based on smaller weapons inventories for both sides and smaller-yield weapons. The US populaton in 1963 for the casualty estimate was 195 million.

Given the increases in the number of weapons and missiles for both sides and the more powerful warheads, using our current population (2020) 331 million – an update on casualties for a 2022 strategic nuclear war would be over 107 million to 182 million dead and the infrastructure of the country is reduced to radioactive rubble. All this in less time than it takes to watch a movie.

We can revisit this topic as relating the Ukraine War and the Russia nuclear threats – and China – and Iran – and North Korea – based on reader interest.

Originally Published 08.04.2022. Re-published with Permission from www.GaryBowser.net.

The New “Axis Powers” – Russia, China, Iran, North Korea

 

A World of Many Moving Parts

World War II designated the opposing sides as the Axis Powers and Allied Powers. The term Axis Powers was coined before WWII when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy signed an agreement in 1936, the Rome-Berlin Axis. Japan formally aligned with Germany and Italy in the 1940 Tripartite Pact. From that point on they were called the Axis Powers.

After 9/11 President George W. Bush used a similar term, Axis of Evil, to call out the international threat of terrorism. President Bush included Iran, Iraq, and North Korea in the Axis of Evil.

The Thought for this week is using the concept of “Axis” as certain nations having a convergence of national interests that threaten the US. Furthermore, the historic idea of an Axis shows how events evolve in a complicated World of Many Moving Parts. An intelligence analyst cannot look at just a single event such as the Ukraine War. The Ukraine War, the Iran nuclear deal, China’s hegemonic efforts militarizing islands in the southeast Pacific, China’s economic thrust in the massive Beltway and Road Initiative are examples how events have varying degrees of linkages. The analyst needs to connect the dots to provide strategic insights how the US may be entangled in these linkages.

We were allied with Stalin, the greatest mass-murderer in history, during WWII; then became enemies of the Soviet Union during the Cold War; then Russia became a “most favored trading partner” in 2012; Russia lost most favored status in 2022 as part of US sanctions and the oblique threats of nuclear war from Russia.

The US dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese WWII enemy who is now a stanch ally of the US.

The point is clear – the world is dynamic, messy, and it is incredibly difficult for intelligence analysts to give simplistic outlooks for geostrategic problems.

We see national interests around the globe in conflict as nations choose sides, avoid choosing sides, worry about possible famine in a world food shortage, economic problems are magnified by an energy crisis in a growing inflationary spiral.

Much of what we see and hear from the press as immediate “strategies” amount to no more than political pandering through platitudes and symbolic gestures. The propaganda war from both sides is symbolic while sending additional weapons to the Ukraine stokes fighting and exacerbates the uncertainties and the risks of escalation to a nuclear war. No one, except Putin, seems to have an End Game in mind. Putin has become a prisoner of his End Game which makes him more dangerous.

A fact from history is nations will embrace transitory alliances as they pursue immediate national interests. Russia and Iran are historic enemies. Russia and China are historic enemies who have frequently implemented alliances of convenience. Is another “Axis of convenience” emerging as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea find certain advantages in cooperating to oppose the US? The US is the only country that has the potential to thwart the global and regional ambitions of China, Russia, and Iran. Europe is weak militarily, vulnerable economically, and has disparate views on individual national security matters.

The Axis concept has one more interesting aspect, history suggests the ‘Axis’ is quite brittle as the members of a given ‘Axis’ still have national interests in conflict. Italy dropped out as an Axis Power during WWII and effectively joined the allies. Iraq is no longer considered a promoter of terrorism and a threat to the countries in the region. Iraq struggles to escape the hegemonic pressure from Iran.

Though a China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis would have the inherent vulnerabilities of conflicting national interests, these ‘Axis’ vulnerabilities would be set aside in the short-term to present a united front against the US.

I submit that an informal “China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis” exists now. The probability is very low this ‘informal axis’ will ever be codified as an international treaty or agreement such as the 1940 Tripartite Pact.  The China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea relationships are fluid and opportunistic as tied to ongoing events. At the foundation of the relationships is a mutual desire to see America displaced as the major economic and military power in the world. Beyond that, the national interests of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, at best, have common benefits, but more often diverge and, in many cases conflict. For example,

• Russia, Iran, and North Korea can find mechanisms to beat international sanctions.
• Common propaganda themes provide global cover on issues.
• Iran and North Korea have shared technical information for years which enables each country to move forward as a nuclear power. North Korea has provided information and participated in the Iranian program to develop nuclear warheads. Iran has provided technical support for the development of North Korean long-range missiles.
• Russia does not want Iran to become a nuclear power with a capability to launch an intercontinental nuclear strike. Despite this, Russia aids and abets Iran against the US in the current discussion regarding Iran developing nuclear weapons. Russia sells nuclear reactors to Iran and shares nuclear technology.
• Though China and Russia have concerns about the rationality of a nuclear armed North Korea, both countries have given timely economic support ensuring the political survival of the Kim family tyrannical reign.
• Though China has an economy ranked second in the world by GDP, the Chinese economy would implode if their export trade was effectively cutoff.
• As Russia appears to struggle in an attempt to rapidly subdue the Ukraine, the parallel weaknesses of a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan become manifestly obvious.

First conclusion: the world continues as a dangerous place for America as our strategic choices are limited by realpolitik and weak leadership at the top of the US government.

Second conclusion: we could easily disrupt and damage the China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis by developing the US energy potential (oil, natural gas, coal) to become a one-country OPEC+.

Third conclusion: Strategically exploiting our national security imperative through becoming the energy-superpower of the world is not likely given the influence of the cult-like Green Movement in the US.

The previous Weekly Thoughts emphasized the risk of miscalculations which could lead to a nuclear war. The Ukraine War and the Iran nuclear agreement talks resonate as two events ripe for miscalculation. What is seldom mentioned is a coherent US geostrategic policy which deals with the reality of the China, Russia, Iran, North Korea Axis.

Originally Published 28.03.2022. Re-published with Permission from www.GaryBowser.net.

The Russian Civil War That Wasn’t

  

Yevgeny Prigozhin – A caterer who added a second business line as the leader of the Russian Wagner mercenary organization.

So many experts and so many opinions – most of the expert opinions pushing an agenda versus offering an objective analysis.

If you do not have time to read all of this comment, here are my ‘expert’ conclusions:

Putin is not undone by the ‘Prigozhin Rebellion”.
The war in the Ukraine will continue.
Prigozhin is toast.

And as the late great Paul Harvey used to say, “and now, the rest of the story”.

A little background goes a long way when faced with a plethora of conspiracy theories.

Prigozhin was a wheeler dealer as a business man using political connections to develop a lucrative catering business with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Prigozhin known background is less than inspirational: a convict sentenced for various crimes, no reported military service or military experience, and a murky mystery how he came to be the leader of the Wagner Group. It appears the Wagner Group was created to do some of ‘the dirty jobs’ which were politically problematic for the Russian government. The US had a similar go-to organization, Blackwater, for certain awkward missions. (I had a former Henley-Putman student who worked for Blackwater).

The early Wagner organization appeared to be staffed with former Russian servicemen, mostly from the elite unites: Spetsnaz, Special Forces, and paratroops. However, the demands for Wagner operations in Africa and the Ukraine quickly diluted this experienced troop base as Wagner turned to Russian prisons, with full support of the Putin government, to recruit large numbers of additional personnel for the Wagner Group. The Wagner Group was totally dependent on the Russian government for funding and logistic support.

The reports of Wagner battlefield successes raised the Wagner Group and Prigozhin to an almost mythical status in Russia. At the same time, international reports of Wagner Group atrocities were part of a competing ongoing propaganda campaign by the West.

The reality of the non-Civil War appears to be that Prigozhin believed the press releases and became a legend in his own mind. Prigozhin began to publicly attack senior Russian generals, the Ministry of Defense, and in that process, indirectly slur Vladimir Putin.

Long story short, the former caterer made a bad recipe when he tried to march on Moscow. In less than one day the rebellion was over: Wagner Group finished, Prigozhin dead man walking, and the Ukraine war goes on.

Read more on the Russian Situation.