By occupying a command center and drawing his troops closer to Moscow, the head of the paramilitary group has challenged the Russian president’s hitherto unwavering authority.
After the Wagner Group uprising against the Russian army, Russia is trying to bring the situation under control on Monday, June 26th. The “anti-terrorist operational regime” established during the uprising was lifted and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, who disappeared over the weekend, appeared on Russian state television in an undated video appraising military personnel in Ukraine.
>> War in Ukraine: Follow our live broadcast of the conflict
For his part, Vladimir Putin reappeared in a Kremlin video shot during an industry and youth forum. Despite this apparent normalcy, this uprising exposed several weaknesses within the Russian regime.
Weak security forces
Within hours on Saturday, troops from the Wagner militia occupied the army headquarters in the city of Rostov, a key command center for Russia’s attack on Ukraine, “without firing a shot,” according to Yevgeny Prigozhin. The head of the paramilitary group also claimed that his teams shot down a Russian helicopter that “opened fire on a civilian column.”
On the same day, the advance of the mercenaries towards Moscow continued without much resistance from the forces sent by the Kremlin: the FSB, the security services and Rosgvardia (the National Guard). According to the US Institute For The Study of War, the surprise and aftermath of his heavy losses in Ukraine meant that the Kremlin had difficulty responding quickly and effectively to Wagner’s advances.
The National Guard therefore could not stop Wagner’s advance in Rostov, as the militia arrested Russian soldiers. Russian observers quoted by the Institute For The Study of War (ISW) pointed out that the personnel mobilized in Rosgvardia were conscripts and not regular members of the Russian security forces. Wagner “probably could have reached the outskirts of Moscow if Prigoyine had ordered it,” the American think tank estimates.
“Is it a lack of will, a lack of means, or an unpreparedness on the part of the security forces? It’s hard to say,” nuanced Dimitri Minic, a specialist in the Russian army, in Le Monde.
“Today, the Kremlin’s image and credibility were shaken again on the central issue of control and maintaining security.”
Dimitri Minic, Russian Army Specialist
in the world”
On the part of Russian power, “there may have been a desire not to enter into an episode of general confrontation,” adds researcher David Teurtrie, author of franceinfo’s “Russia, the Return of Power” (ed. Armand Colin). “Vladimir Putin seemed to want more compromises. It’s difficult to distinguish what the real weakness is or the strategy,” he weighs. Be that as it may, this initiative by Yevgeny Prigoyine to “march on Moscow” is in addition to recent events that have called into question the Russian state’s ability to defend its territory, such as the armed invasion Groups from Ukraine to the Belgorod region Drone attack in Moscow.
Putin’s omnipotence is tainted
On closer inspection of all law firms, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken estimated that this crisis was showing “real cracks” at the highest level of the Russian state. “The fact that there is someone inside questioning Putin’s authority and asking directly why he launched this aggression against Ukraine is in itself something very powerful,” the chief of US diplomacy said Sunday.
Through this revolt, “Prigoyine showed that it was possible to frighten the Kremlin and the Russian regime,” adds Carole Grimaud-Potter, Russia specialist, in an interview with franceinfo. “Putin no longer embodies coercion and violence, a stronger one has prevailed. (…) Godfather Putin’s throne is weakened,” adds military expert Pierre Servent on France Inter.
“Vladimir Putin got into his own game of always trying to create competition between his armed forces to put himself in the position of referee. This time Wagner escaped him.”
David Teurtrie, Russia Specialist
at franceinfo
The tone of the Russian president’s speech on June 24 also bears witness to this fragility, analyzes sociologist Anna Colin Lebedev, a specialist in post-Soviet Russia, in Le Monde. The parallel, particularly with the events of 1917 in Russia, when the tsarist regime was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, leading to a civil war, contrasted with his earlier speeches, in which he insisted on saying “that everything is under control may be”.
The mediation of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko to end the Wagner revolt also calls Vladimir Putin’s authority into question. “We can see the feverishness of the president, who is not in the culture of negotiation with his opponents,” says Carole Grimaud-Potter. Vladimir Putin allowed Lukashenko to negotiate and called on his most loyal allies, such as the Kazakh President, to ensure their support.”
However, this strategy is not necessarily a rejection by the Kremlin chief. “Putin could neither kill Prigoyine, who was too popular, nor ignore his expedition, which was too dangerous,” analyzes Franak Viacorka, close adviser to Belarusian exile opponent Svetlana Tikhanovskaïa, quoted in Le Figaro. So the solution was to “call on Lukashenko to stop Prigoyine without eliminating him”.
An internal attack
“Wagner’s uprising destroyed the myth of the unity of all Russia behind its president,” Françoise Daucé, former French ambassador to Russia, told franceinfo. According to this former diplomat, this rebellion “promoted the idea of a sacred union behind the president by exposing the divisions within power itself.”
For the first time since arriving in the Kremlin in 1999, Vladimir Putin has shown that he may not be able to protect his people. However, the Russian president based his power on promises of stability and prosperity. “For the enrichment of the elites, for ordinary Russians for the predictability of the next day,” Anna Colin Lebedev summarizes to Le Monde.
“The vertical of Russian power is seriously compromised, the elites are questioning it,” said Carole Grimaud-Potter. This crisis could therefore have repercussions on Russia’s internal political system. At the regional level, local governors will be able to assert themselves as “political actors” and not simply as the Kremlin’s executive, estimates Anna Colin Lebedev in Liberation. A situation that risks weakening a power “that was committed to having only technocrats with no political ambitions around”.
The uprising has also undermined the base of support for the Russian president in ultra-nationalist circles. For example, former army officer and Russian nationalist Igor Girkin said on Sunday that Vladimir Putin would have to “transfer” some of his functions to others if he could not control the war in Ukraine, the ISW quoted as saying. But the Russian President has not yet said his last word. Vladimir Putin “never changes under pressure. However, in a second step he could reorganize the army, the Ministry of the Interior or even the secret services,” analyzes David Teurtrie. The consequences of this revolt are still difficult to predict.