Divide and Rule

 

At this writing, it is not clear what is happening in Russia. This morning, Prigozhin’s Wagner group was marching for Moscow, Prigozhin saying Russia needed a new president. As of a couple of hours ago, Prigozhin has ordered them back to barracks. Has he lost, was it all some sort of play-acting, or is it a pause to allow for negotiation? 

However it turns out, it seems strange in the first place that Putin would have let this situation develop. It seems an obviously bad idea to allow private armies within a state. This is why the government, proverbially, has a monopoly on the use of force. It is an invitation to eventual civil war. In the conduct of a war against external enemies, it leaves command disjointed and coordination difficult. And, as happened here, one faction can pull out of the line at the worst possible moment.

Yet this divide and rule pattern seems to be Putin’s preference. I understand he likes to encourage competing centres of power. He positively builds up warlords like Prigozhin or Kadyrov.

This is a trait Putin shares with Hitler. The Fuehrer too had his various private armies: the Waffen SS under Himmler; the SA under Roehm; the Luftwaffe and Gestapo under Goering. He would also regularly charge two officials with the same responsibilities. According to William L. Shirer, he even once had two officials, unknown to each other, bid competitively for something at auction on his behalf—forcing himself to pay a higher price.

It seems mad; it is mad; but it is typical of a narcissist. A narcissist delights in seeing conflict among others. They will stir it up. They will do what they can to convince party A that party B has it in or them; then party B that party A is out to get them. Perhaps this is to distract from their own scheming and self-serving; perhaps it salves their conscience to see others act maliciously. But it also means that, if anyone underneath them gets too big, they can call on the other factions to pull them down.

It means that a narcissist in power is profoundly damaging to any state, community, or family. There will be ill-feelings and grudges everywhere.

And it explains the beatitude “Blessed are the peace-makers.” This refers not to those who negotiate formal peace treaties, not the Kissingers and the Arafats or even the Pearsons. It refers to those who, when in power over others, try to maintain peace among those subject to them, rather than fomenting trouble.

Justin Trudeau is a striking example of a leader who foments conflict instead of peace. Biden is his like. The entire doctrine of intersectionality is about setting us all at one another’s throats. And is liable to lead us, too, to civil war.