Russia-Ukraine War24-Hour Revolt by Wagner Mercenaries Undermines Putin’s Authority
Russia-Ukraine War24-Hour Revolt by Wagner Mercenaries Undermines Putin’s Authority
Here is the most recent info on the Russian situation.
A day after a Wagner mercenary uprising against Vladimir V. Putin’s administration was abruptly put down, neither Mr. Putin nor the mercenary leader appeared in public, which added to the sense of unease and bewilderment permeating Russia.
The short-lived rebellion came to an end on Saturday night with a compromise that spared the mercenary boss, Yevgeny Prigozhin, harm and let him to live in exile in Belarus. Charges against him and his hired guns, who were instrumental in winning the struggle for eastern Ukraine, were also withdrawn.
But in many ways, Mr. Putin’s strongman power was weakened by the 24-hour rebellion. Uncomfortable doubts about Mr. Putin’s future in Russia and the security of the nation arose as a result of Mr. Prigozhin’s capacity to mount an armed rebellion that threatened to reach Moscow. Even Kremlin-connected Russians who expressed joy that the protest did not result in civil war concurred that Mr. Putin had made a lasting impression by coming off as weak.
One day after Mr. Putin delivered a brief speech to the nation in which he referred to Mr. Prigozhin’s activities as “treason,” he kept a low profile. The location of Mr. Prigozhin was likewise unknown.
Here’s the most recent:
The arrangement to allow Mr. Prigozhin travel to Belarus and escape prosecution, as well as the release of the Wagner fighters from consequences, was mediated by Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, the president of Belarus and a close ally of Mr. Putin. He might be Mr. Prigozhin’s revolt’s most obvious winner.
The brief uprising highlighted weaknesses in Mr. Putin’s hold on power and raised questions about the continuation of Russia’s conflict in Ukraine, according to the American secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken, who made the statement on Sunday.
According to a recent examination of social media posts, recent weeks saw Mr. Prigozhin’s popularity suffer as a result of Kremlin propaganda.
According to people briefed on the intelligence, senior U.S. national security officials received signs that Mr. Prigozhin was planning to take military action against senior Russian defence leaders as early as Wednesday.
Both the Wagner group’s future and Mr. Prigozhin’s continued involvement in it are uncertain. The operations in Africa, where it has thousands of fighters, are included in this.
Many Ukrainians who participated in the uprising believed that unrest within Russia would support their cause. A day after the uprising collapsed, though, most Ukrainians had essentially moved on.
The official viewpoint about the 24-hour mutiny staged by Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, the bellicose mercenary leader who sent his forces marching on Moscow only to draw them back at the last minute, was made apparent in the opening line of the Kremlin’s premier weekly news programme on Sunday night.
Dmitry Kiselyov, the presenter and senior Kremlin propagandist whose programme, Vesti Nedelu or “News of the Week,” sets the tone for the government monopoly on television news, declared that “armed mutiny in Russia is not supported by the society.” “Treason during a war is a serious crime.”
The passionate 5-minute statement by Mr. Putin from Saturday morning, in which he accused Mr. Prigozhin of stabbing Russia in the back while omitting his name, was subsequently broadcast in its entirety.
The promises that Mr. Prigozhin would be prosecuted for his crimes soon vanished after that speech. The presidential spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, relieved the dramatic tension by declaring a behind-the-scenes agreement credited to President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko of neighbouring Belarus. His announcement was carried by all news channels. Mr. Prigozhin was guaranteed safe exit from the nation and his forces were pardoned in exchange for standing down.
The lengthy report from Mr. Kiselyov on Sunday night implied that Mr. Prigozhin had encountered little support from the general populace for his uprising and used flowery language to describe its about-face: “The armoured column ran out of petrol and the feeling that the head of mutineers, Prigozhin, was about to evaporate into bloody steam, strengthened.”
Shortly put, the programme came to the conclusion that Mr. Prigozhin was a traitor whose act of disobedience meant little in the face of Russian unity.
On its weekly roundup, NTV, another state-run channel, repeated the same theme and referred to the revolt as a betrayal. By citing claims that American intelligence was aware of the brewing insurrection but kept quiet, it alluded to the involvement of foreign powers, the Kremlin’s go-to boogeyman.
The elder generation’s primary news source is state television, but younger Russians rely on Telegram, a social networking app that is overrun with news and commentary, not all of it trustworthy.
A powerful group of pro-war bloggers who have been both in favour of and critical of the war effort were put in an awkward situation. They were torn between admiring Mr. Prigozhin and his mercenary army and being horrified by the wounds his uprising had caused.
On Sunday, a blogger by the name of Yuri Kotenok expressed his concern on Telegram about the whereabouts of the military leadership throughout the crisis. Sergei K. Shoigu, the defence minister, and Vitaly V. Gerasimov, the military chief of staff, the major targets of Mr. Prigozhin’s wrath, have not been seen or heard from since the uprising started.
Where were you on the day that this occurred? he asked in his letter. Or is it possible to only record footage when the president is not in danger of being put on display? This is not a show; please use common sense. For the past 12 months, the nation has been at war.
Even while observers from outside Russia claimed the brief uprisings had irreparably damaged President Vladimir V. Putin’s image as infallible and unstoppable, the Russian government media inevitably portrayed the day as a victory for Moscow as a whole.
However, a few Russian voices asserted that the issues raised by the insurrection required attention.
The headline of a shabby tabloid called Moskovsky Komsomolets read, “Prigozhin Leaves, Problems Remain: Deep Political Consequences of a Failed Coup.” (Mr. Prigozhin claimed he wasn’t planning a coup and was just trying to get the top military brass to change.)
The newspaper claimed that by enabling illegal militias to thrive and undermine the state’s monopoly on violence, “the highest power in the country” was to blame for the issue.
Everyone had been perplexed by Mr. Prigozhin’s ability to criticise the highest military leadership with impunity, according to the tabloid. (Independent observers from outside Russia pointed out that identical declarations by regular protestors sometimes result in severe prison sentences; however, this was not highlighted in the state-run media.)
A journalist named Mikhail Rostovsky claimed that the rebellion exposed Russia’s vulnerability to the outside world and that it “created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.”
Yevgeny Prigozhin will travel to Belarus, but the issues he (and, to be fair, others) caused will still exist, and finding solutions to them will be incredibly challenging.
