Although only a few hours passed between Wagner’s commander announcing the revolt and retracting it, the fate and impact of this event on the Russian security services, army and Ukraine remain uncertain. The volatile situation makes it too early to provide a definitive assessment or draw conclusions about how this unfolded.
Regardless of the underlying reasons, the Wagner revolt has become a significant event in Russian and international politics. It has raised concerns about the future of the Wagner Group, which has been accused of carrying out various activities on behalf of the Russian government.
According to The Washington Post, U.S. intelligence agencies received information in mid-June suggesting that the head of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, was planning armed action against the Russian defense establishment. Prigozhin has long criticized the establishment for its perceived failure in the war in Ukraine. The intelligence was promptly reported to the White House and other government agencies.
Upon Prigozhin’s announcement of the rebellion, several American officials said they were not surprised. They noted that the exact details and timing of Prigozhin’s plans became clear shortly before his astonishing takeover of the Russian military headquarters in Rostov. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned that, after quelling the revolt, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow “gave signs” that the U.S. was not involved in the Wagner rebellion and expressed hopes for the safety of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, as reported by the Russian news agency TASS.
While it may be challenging or premature to discuss a direct American-Western role in the Wagner rebellion, there are several indirect factors that contributed to the discord between Wagner and the Russian military establishment. Western military support provided to Ukrainian forces resulted in fierce resistance, exposing operational flaws within the Russian army. This intensified the conflict and disagreements between Wagner and the Russian Defense Ministry, ultimately leading to Prigozhin’s declaration of rebellion.
Following the resolution of the rebellion through mediation by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, Wagner’s commander emphasized the expertise and capabilities of his forces. He stated that they are considered among the most experienced in Russia and possibly in the world. He further claimed that their group undertakes various missions worldwide, including in Africa, Arabic countries and other regions, and they have achieved positive results in Ukraine.
“No fighter from our group wanted to sign with Russian defense because they knew in advance of the course of the military operation that they would lose their capabilities, and the number of those who signed did not exceed 2%. We have always been against working under the banner of the Ministry of Defense,” he added.
Perhaps the most prominent factor that encouraged and accelerated Prigozhin’s moves, and made him cross all red lines, was President Vladimir Putin’s bias in favor of the official Russian military establishment when he approved Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu’s decision to sign all volunteers, including Wagner elements, contracts with the Defense Ministry and set a deadline until the first of July. In addition, there may be parties within the agencies and among the Russian generals that support Prigozhin’s movements, and this will become clear during the next few days. The main factor is the Russian army’s preoccupation with the Ukrainian counterattack and its restriction, making it difficult to leave the fronts to confront the Wagner rebellion inside Russia.
The unfinished revolt of the Russian private military Wagner group raises questions about the fate of the group’s vast network of military and commercial operations in the regions of Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
It is estimated that Wagner has at least 5,000 fighters in Africa alone, most of whom are former Russian soldiers and some convicts from Russian prisons. There are also other foreign elements that are all paid fighters and, at the official level, have no connection to Russia, where there is no law that allows the formation of armed groups.
The spread of Wagner in this way not only supports Russian influence but also provides an opportunity for the Kremlin to reduce the number of losses of Russian forces in any conflict in which they are involved because the Wagner dead will not be formally linked to the official Russian forces. Russia’s denial of the government’s relationship with Wagner provided the possibility of not taking responsibility for their actions. Its elements are everywhere.
After the rebellion, Putin admitted that the state funded the Wagner network, while at first Moscow refused to acknowledge the existence of Wagner in the first place, then turned to deny the government’s relationship with it before the battles in Ukraine changed all that. For years, the Russian exile provided a way to maintain the leverage Wagner gives to Moscow, with the possibility of denying responsibility for its actions, but after the recent developments, we will be facing a different reality and realities.
According to The Washington Post, Putin’s failure to take decisive action against mercenaries involved in the rebellion or hold them accountable undermines the image he portrays of being in complete control of events. Consequently, regaining control of Wagner could prove beneficial for Putin, as it would restore the countries in which Wagner is present their confidence in the stable Moscow regime. The crucial question now revolves around the fate of Wagner’s operations and whether the Kremlin can remove Prigozhin while preserving the empire he has established across three continents.
Prigozhin is subject to U.S. and European sanctions and he has been accused for several years of interfering in the U.S. elections, especially the presidential elections in 2016. The U.S. State Department has previously offered a reward of up to $10 million in return for reporting information about Prigozhin’s connection to “interfering in U.S. elections.” He is also accused of creating “electronic armies” with fake accounts that are active on social media in an attempt to influence voters by discrediting candidates or spreading misinformation.
