In the aftermath of the Wagner mutiny, a multitude of questions arise regarding its ramifications. Led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a trusted confidant of President Vladimir Putin, the rebellion has been denounced as an act of treachery by Putin himself. This development prompts us to ponder over its implications on the course of the Ukraine conflict and the crisis management strategy adopted by the Kremlin. Moreover, it raises the question of whether the Western powers, if any, can capitalize on these events, especially if any Western actors were involved right from the inception.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Delving into the aftermath of the Wagner rebellion vis-à-vis the Ukraine war calls for a thorough examination of the rebellion's nature, limits, and far-reaching dimensions. Did the purported event serve as a genuine maneuver to obstruct the assimilation of Prigozhin's privately-funded army into the Russian military apparatus?
Was its underlying purpose to safeguard Prigozhin from falling under the jurisdiction of Sergey Shoygu, the Russian defense minister, whose military leadership acumen has been subject to doubt and skepticism by the Wagner Group leaders over recent months? Or was this rebellion nothing more than an ill-conceived plot, as some Western voices contend, with undisclosed objectives yet to be unveiled?
Irrespective of the actual chain of events, Wagner transcends the mere classification of an armed private militia. The rebellion laid bare its true connection with the Russian state and the undeniable fact that it receives generous financial backing from the Russian treasury. This revelation holds weight, particularly when juxtaposed against the official disavowal of any affiliations between Wagner and the Russian state, consistently portraying it as a mere private military company.
So, many are trying to unravel the intricate web of alliances and responsibilities woven by the far-reaching Wagner entity, whose operational footprint extends across approximately 30 countries. Notably, its cyber units and capabilities, widely accused of meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections, merit profound scrutiny.
Of paramount significance is the potential strategic reverberations on the fate of Wagner forces, who have played a pivotal role in the ongoing Ukraine conflict. Will these forces seamlessly continue their operations, transferring command and control to the Russian military apparatus while supplanting their renegade chieftain Prigozhin? Can the transfer of leadership authority within Wagner be deftly orchestrated sans any disruptions or schisms, thereby safeguarding the Russian army's meticulously laid plans in Ukraine?
The Western, or more specifically the American, framing of the rebellion's unfolding events matters here. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken offered a striking assessment, asserting, "Sixteen months ago, Russian forces were on the doorstep of Kyiv in Ukraine, thinking they'd take the city in a matter of days, thinking they would erase Ukraine from the map as an independent country. Now, over this weekend, they've had to defend Moscow, Russia's capital, against mercenaries of Putin's own making."
Blinken's depiction of this strategic transformation within the Russian landscape hinges upon the veracity of the events that unfolded. The insurrection prompted the Moscow mayor to rally city residents to remain indoors, confronting what was dubbed a "stab in the back," and which Putin himself deemed a "lethal threat to the Russian state." It posed a serious challenge to Kremlin authority, as perceived by Western observers and influential circles.
Consequently, we are confronted with two potential trajectories for Russian conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine, shrouded in the prevailing haze of ambiguity.
The first scenario hinges on the authenticity of the events that unfolded on June 23, 2023, assuming the occurrence of a bona fide armed putsch. Within this framework, numerous analytical deductions emerge, prominently featuring a change of approach by President Putin, both domestically and on the international stage.
With regard to the Ukraine conflict, Putin may opt for a stern resolution, potentially involving sweeping changes in the leadership structure of the Russian military. However, such measures would likely be implemented with a deliberate time lag, aimed at avoiding the perception of striking a pact with Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Wagner head honcho. Prigozhin has consistently leveled sharp criticisms against senior Russian military leaders, accusing them of ineptitude and failure, particularly targeting the Defense Minister and the Chief of Staff of the Russian army.
However, it remains indisputable that the control of Wagner forces – which pales in comparison in terms of weaponry and strategic planning to the Russian army – over military installations in Voronezh, a key city roughly 500 kilometers south of Moscow, subsequent to the seizure of Rostov, lays bare glaring vulnerabilities in security and hints at potential internal divisions and acts of treachery within the upper echelons and middle-tier leadership of the Russian military. Should this prove true, Putin would be compelled to vigorously pursue a swift and conceivably uncompromising resolution to the Ukraine conflict, with the aim of reestablishing his authority and reclaiming a position of dominance on the geopolitical stage. Such a course of action would also serve to mend the tarnished perception of his leadership following the rebellion, which had shaken his public image to its core.
Within this same context, we should brace ourselves for an impending surge in the intensity and brutality of Russian offensives, particularly through heightened aerial and missile assaults. The objective would be to achieve tactical gains that would pave the way for expediting the acceptance of mediations or presenting solutions that could prove instrumental in reaching a settlement for the Ukraine crisis.
In the same scenario, it is also expected that President Putin will resort to a heightened deployment of military hardware, with the aim of reinstating Russia's prestige on the global stage. This implies the potential utilization of weaponry and ammunition that Putin may have refrained from employing since the onset of the conflict. However, the current circumstances dictate his recourse to maximum force as part of a comprehensive endeavor to regain a firm grip on power.
The second conjectured scenario surrounding the rebellion raises the possibility of clandestine machinations at play, with the mutiny serving as a cog in an intricate "intelligence plot" aimed at achieving undisclosed objectives, be it on the domestic front or in the management of the Ukraine conflict.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
While this scenario holds some plausibility, it cannot be unequivocally dismissed, given the sequence of events characterized by swift escalation, then dramatic retreat, up to an anticlimactic conclusion that left many, if not all, skeptical.
Should this hypothesis hold true, it is likely that a portion of the covert objectives would be intertwined with shaping the course of events in the Ukraine war. This development has already sparked concerns among nations like Lithuania, who have grown increasingly apprehensive in light of the Wagner forces' movement towards Belarus. They perceive a palpable threat and have swiftly sought NATO's assistance to bolster their border security measures.
The prevailing unease has found resonance in the sentiments expressed by Polish President Andrzej Duda, who issued a clarion call for unwavering vigilance within the alliance. This emphatic stance underscores the deep-seated apprehensions harbored by European nations, as they grapple with the specter of a Russian stratagem aimed at broadening the horizons of the conflict. The objective would be to exert pressure on Western powers, compelling them to make concessions as a means to resolve the crisis at hand. Such concerns resonate strongly within European corridors of power.
