Really good writing. This point, in particular, was unique as far as I have seen and insightful: "The question we should be asking, then, is not whether Putin is more or less powerful, but whether the Prigozhin episode has, as Grozovsky suggests, opened the door for more such episodes in the future."
Prof. Greene cited a couple of sources discussing the lack of broad/large support for Prigozhin: the people who "sat on the fence" (or in other words couldn't decide who to support) or didn't see a future without Putin and thus didn't help Prigozhin succeed. Perhaps he has more to add?
On another note, I believe one of the cited authors, Kathryn Stoner, is at Stanford, not Columbia Univ.
Really good writing. This point, in particular, was unique as far as I have seen and insightful: "The question we should be asking, then, is not whether Putin is more or less powerful, but whether the Prigozhin episode has, as Grozovsky suggests, opened the door for more such episodes in the future."
Very good reading as always. Thanks for sharing these thoughts with us, I think you made very good points regarding the failed "half-coup"
Liked this a lot. Fantastic read.
Re: this:
"In the end, Prigozhin’s uprising did not create among the Russian elite (or anyone else) a sense of a future without Putin — and so Putin persists."
Would have loved to know what Prof. Greene thought was the [main] missing ingredient in Prigozhin's attempt?
Prof. Greene cited a couple of sources discussing the lack of broad/large support for Prigozhin: the people who "sat on the fence" (or in other words couldn't decide who to support) or didn't see a future without Putin and thus didn't help Prigozhin succeed. Perhaps he has more to add?
On another note, I believe one of the cited authors, Kathryn Stoner, is at Stanford, not Columbia Univ.