On the 24th of June, Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Wagner Group, mobilised 25,000 fighters on a ‘justice march’ stretching 400 kilometres from Rostov-on-Don to Moscow, to question the military leaders of Russia about their lacklustre wartime tactics. This was a response to a prolonged campaign aimed at removing Russia’s Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu and Chief of General Staff General Valery Gerasimov. Prigozhin held them accountable for a flawed strategy and significant Russian losses.
Prigozhin had earlier expressed his dissatisfaction with the Russian strategy, citing a lack of assertiveness crucial for winning. Consequently, the Wagner Group executed human wave attacks under the code name “Operation Bakhmut Meat Grinder,” predominantly involving ex-prisoners. However, the brutal realities of trench and urban warfare brought in disappointing results, leaving Prigozhin complaining about ammunition scarcity by April, fearing a stalemate.
Following a series of menacing threats from Prigozhin in May, he announced a full withdrawal of his paramilitary division after seizing the city, revealing fractures in Putin’s control and stoking fears of civil strife in a nation boasting the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
RISE OF PRIGOZHIN’S REBELLION
Prigozhin, infamously known as ‘Putin’s Chef,’ remained respectful towards Putin throughout the uprising, clarifying his argument lay with the military leadership. His political influence grew, drawing support from many. Conversely, Shoigu seemed to neglect the reality of his wavering control over Russia’s Armed Forces. Despite Prigozhin’s hopeful anticipation for military defections, the Wagner fighters managed to take Rostov-on-Don unopposed, receiving applause from the citizens.
It is clear that such forces serve Russia’s interests through plausible deniability. However, the lack of visible command and control links between the Armed Forces and the Wagner Group has created instances of discordance. One question remains: how was the Russian security system caught off guard by these developments while the US intelligence had foresight of these impending events?
PUTIN’S CURRENT STANDING
Reports emerged about the arrest of “General Armageddon” Sergei Surovikin, known for his forceful tactics in Syria, who sided with Prigozhin during the uprising. The “lack of decisiveness” to suppress the mutiny has led to a massive purge within the Russian Armed Forces, as reported by Reuters.
The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and US President Joe Biden have commented on the mutiny’s weakening impact on Putin’s authority. However, even though cracks have been exposed, the mutiny has been suppressed and it is unlikely to topple Putin’s reign. Yet, a rattled leader, barely surviving a domestic coup, is deemed more dangerous than a wartime autocrat who feels secure at home.
DECIPHERING THE REBELLION
Prigozhin’s revolt can be examined from various perspectives. Prigozhin claims the “March for Justice,” was the logical response after being deprived of ammunition and attacked by conventional Russian forces. Meanwhile, Putin labels it a “stab in the back.”
We need to understand Prigozhin’s intentions behind this act. Was he aiming to overthrow Putin, bring about permanent changes in Russia, targeting Shoigu and Gerasimov on someone’s behalf, or did he act at the behest of an external player? Or was this rebellion a desperate attempt to maintain the Wagner Group’s autonomy, thereby turning a factional dispute into a direct challenge to Putin?
Even though the immediate threat was defused by a deal brokered by Prigozhin’s rebellion has raised many questions. Did he aim to replace Putin? Was his objective a lasting transformation of Russia? Did he stage the event for a third party to target Shoigu and Gerasimov? Or was this merely a desperate act from a cornered man losing a power struggle with the defence establishment? Perhaps the catalyst was the recent Ministry of Defense announcement requiring all private military companies and volunteer units to sign contracts with them. Undoubtedly, Prigozhin wanted the Wagner Group to maintain its autonomy, a desire that morphed into an open challenge to Putin.
While an immediate threat was averted through a deal brokered by President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, the perception of Putin’s invulnerability was damaged, potentially destabilising the Russian political system in the long term. Despite Prigozhin’s assertion that the Russian military is ‘corrupt and inefficient,’ there’s no indication of regime collapse, but the veneer of Putin’s power has been eroded.
Former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, comments on the situation that, “Putin is much weaker today, soldiers in Russia are all watching this and wondering, ‘What’s happened to our leader?’” While a weakened Russia might be less destructive, particularly in Ukraine, history shows that rulers who survive coup attempts often manage to regain control and preserve their power.
McFaul suggests Putin might have found a way to resolve long-standing issues with Wagner and Prigozhin, “When push came to shove, he [Putin] found a way to avoid starting a civil war…maybe he’s found a way to get rid of his Wagner problem and his Prigozhin problem that has been festering for a long time.”
The fallout from this incident could result in Putin distrusting his military leadership and armed forces, undermining Russia’s capacity to project combat power and forcing them to rely more on their nuclear arsenal.
CHINA’S STANCE
China, meanwhile, considers the incident as “Russia’s internal affair,” showing support for Russia’s stability efforts. But behind this public messaging, the revolt has likely unsettled Chinese officials, as suggested by Elizabeth Wishnick, a senior researcher at Columbia University. The events raise questions about regime security, a critical concern for Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
The complex relationship between Russia and China has drawn closer under President Xi’s leadership, strengthened by their shared hostility towards the US. However, the episode further emphasises Russia as the junior partner in their alliance.
CONCLUSION
During the mutiny, Ukrainian officials were discussing prospects for a peace deal with Russia in Copenhagen, Denmark. The plan, still in its infancy, will inevitably address the status of Crimea and Russian-occupied territories in Donbas, reparations, and reconstruction payments in Ukraine. The continued presence of Wagner Forces in Belarus, despite the uprising’s resolution, remains a concern for regional stability.
In response to heightened instability, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius announced a decision to permanently base a German Brigade in Lithuania, on NATO’s Eastern flank, a move Berlin had previously resisted.
The rebellion’s impact on the Ukraine War might produce two extremes. One scenario involves the Russian military’s infighting providing opportunities for Ukrainians to recapture territory and push their counteroffensive. Conversely, a humiliated Putin might escalate his aggression to avoid appearing weak.
Wars reshape political landscapes, altering goals and objectives. Just as the Peloponnesian War dramatically changed Sparta and Athens, changes resulting from this rebellion might not be restricted to Russia. Putin’s focus will likely be on consolidating power, eliminating internal threats, and escalating operations against Ukraine. As we delve into these complex and intricate power dynamics, one thing remains certain: the events leading to the Wagner Rebellion will have far-reaching implications, both internally and externally, in the geopolitical arena.
This article was published earlier on https://sundayguardianlive.com/
