Russian Coup 2023

Evgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner mercenary group and a convicted criminal, initiated a conflict by declaring war on the Russian Ministry of Defense and advancing towards the city of Rostov-on-Don. From there, he proceeded towards Moscow with the objective of removing Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov from their positions. As a result, the city of Moscow heightened its state of alertness.

Advancing within a mere 125 miles of Moscow, which is closer than the distance between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., Prigozhin proclaimed that a settlement had been reached and that the Wagner forces would retreat to avoid violence. However, it appears that Prigozhin’s own blood was spared from being shed. If the deal, as announced by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, accurately reflects the situation, Prigozhin’s status has swiftly transformed from that of a formidable warlord to a man existing on borrowed time in a foreign land, anticipating the imminent retribution of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As per Peskov’s statement, Russia has decided to dismiss all charges against Prigozhin, who is now required to go into exile in Belarus. Non-rebellious Wagner fighters will be granted amnesty and subsequently sign contracts to fall under the jurisdiction of Minister of Defense Shoigu’s Ministry of Defense. In a previous discussion, I speculated that Shoigu’s efforts to capture Wagner’s men and dismantle the group might have been one of the factors that motivated Prigozhin’s actions. This turn of events represents a significant defeat for Prigozhin, as he has now relinquished everything except his own life.

At present, we can only engage in speculation regarding Prigozhin’s motives for initiating this coup and the swift failure that ensued. One possibility is that Prigozhin had allies in Moscow who pledged their support but ultimately reneged on their commitment. It is conceivable that his associates in the Kremlin either grew apprehensive, were fewer in number than anticipated, or never truly existed. It is worth noting that Prigozhin lacks the acumen of a military strategist or diplomat; instead, he is a violent, arrogant, and impulsive individual who may have embarked on this venture fueled by his own inflated self-confidence.

However, this peculiar incident cannot be considered a victory for Putin, as he has suffered visible damage, leaving him with a lasting scar of political vulnerability. Instead of projecting the image of a decisive autocrat or a commanding mob boss, Putin’s departure from Moscow was accompanied by a short video in which he displayed visible anger and appeared less self-assured than usual. It is known that Putin harbors significant concerns about assassination attempts, so it is possible that he chose to retreat and gather more information on potential allies or conspirators linked to Prigozhin before taking further action. Nevertheless, regardless of the underlying reasons, Putin declared his intention to handle Prigozhin firmly but then departed, likely to his retreat at Valdai, thereby projecting an image of weakness and disorganization.

Although initially an unconventional choice, Putin’s decision to involve President Aleksandr Lukashenko as a mediator in this situation now appears somewhat reasonable considering the alleged deal. Lukashenko, as the Belarusian autocrat, was able to personally guarantee Prigozhin’s safe passage. Given that Lukashenko lacks connections in Moscow that hold more significance than Putin, he was a secure option to carry out Putin’s terms. Furthermore, Lukashenko’s continued rule relies on Putin’s support, making him unlikely to betray the Russian leader. Additionally, Putin’s choice to involve Lukashenko can be seen as a display of power. As a former intelligence officer, Putin would perceive Prigozhin as nothing more than a disreputable convict. While the two men may have had a friendly relationship before this incident, they were not equals. It would have been a significant loss of prestige for the president of a major power to personally negotiate with his former chef.

While Prigozhin’s immediate survival is ensured, his life as he knew it has come to an end, leaving him in a state of uncertainty. On the other hand, Putin’s political strength has been significantly diminished. The once unassailable ruler of Russia is no longer impervious to challenges. In order to prevent the shock and embarrassment of an armed march into the Russian capital, especially during a time when other Russians are engaged in conflict on the front lines in Ukraine, Putin had to resort to making a deal with a convict—a position that is considered one of the lowest in Putin’s cultural context. This turn of events has tarnished Putin’s image of invincibility and underscores his newfound vulnerability.

Prigozhin inflicted harm and managed to escape without facing immediate retaliation from a man who is known for never letting such a personal offense go unanswered. However, it is possible that Putin had no viable alternatives, highlighting the precariousness of his situation. The available options were all daunting: Ordering the Russian military to attack armed Russian men would have carried significant risks, particularly due to the potential support these individuals may have had among Russia’s officers and political elites, who harbor resentment towards the Defense Ministry’s bureaucracy. Similarly, eliminating Prigozhin outright would have posed a considerable risk, as it could have incited the remaining Wagnerites to fight to the death with the Russian military closing in.

The extent of the damage to Putin’s power is difficult to determine at present, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding the positions of Shoigu and Gerasimov. While the rebellion has removed Wagner from the Ukrainian theater, Putin might attempt to mitigate this ignominious moment by intensifying Russia’s brutality in the region. However, two things remain evident. Firstly, Putin has endured a significant political setback and has managed to survive by striking deals with both Prigozhin and his fellow Kremlin colleagues, an outcome that can be considered a humiliation. Secondly, Yevgeny Prigozhin has altered the Russian political landscape pertaining to Putin’s war in Ukraine. The repercussions of Prigozhin’s rebellion will extend beyond the present moment, but the duration of his stay in Belarus and his ability to remain alive there as events unfold remain uncertain.