When something incomprehensible happens, it can be reassuring to fall back on old cliches. Former British prime minister Winston Churchill’s famous description of Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma,” summarizes what many Russia analysts feel after the aborted armed rebellion led by Wagner Group commander Yevgeny Prigozhin over the weekend. While answers remain elusive, some elements seem important to help navigate through the fog.
There are powerful arguments that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been weakened by Prigozhin’s armed rebellion. For the first time in 23 years, many Russians would have woken up on Saturday morning wondering whether their president was still in control.
Then, hours after a visibly shaken Putin announced that traitors would be punished, charges against Prigozhin were dropped, and his armed soldiers — who allegedly shot down a transport plane and at least two helicopters (the exact number is still unconfirmed), killing a number of highly skilled military pilots — were given security guarantees.
This indicates that Putin had to make concessions to Prigozhin, and in a country where a social media post criticizing the army carries a potential prison sentence, the gap between the rich and powerful and ordinary citizens has been unashamedly confirmed in full public view. The Russian army, which has stagnated on the Ukrainian front for months, was unable — or unwilling — to stop Wagner’s advance through swathes of Russian territory.
Putin’s unspoken contract with the Russian people is that in exchange for democratic freedoms he gives them stability and security. This contract has been broken. In a democracy all of the above would spell political death, but Russia is neither a democracy nor a functioning state. The only way to make sense of what happened in the past few days is to view events through the prism of a feud between criminal gangs in which each mafia boss holds so much leverage over the other that the balance of power can easily tip either way.
That Prigozhin is still alive indicates that whatever he holds over Putin is so damaging, and so well protected by unseen allies, that it is safer for Putin to allow him to live — for now.
In the days leading to Wagner’s rebellion, Prigozhin multiplied his harangues against the defense establishment, but was careful to spare Putin. After the president’s address to the nation, in which he firmly came down on the side of the military, Prigozhin’s gloves came off. This suggests that until the last minute Prigozhin was unsure who Putin would back and that he expected political support from the top.
This never materialized, either from politicians or top army brass. This is a defeat for Prigozhin. Moreover, his escapade smoked out any traitors in Putin’s entourage. In this sense, Putin comes out stronger in the short term.
There are two factors Putin would have to contend with if he is to consolidate this small victory.
In a dictatorship that likes to pretend to be a democracy, the fractures within the regime that this rebellion revealed would have to be dealt with through tighter repression and even more control of the media. A whipping up of patriotic frenzy and a few — preferably foreign — scapegoats would wrap things up nicely. Prigozhin’s 25,000 troops, who were prepared to march against the regular army, would also need to be managed.
Add to these the approximately 32,000 demobilized ex-Wagner troops who were put on standby through Prigozhin’s networks when the rebellion began, and the Russian state has to deal with close to 60,000 angry soldiers with combat experience, some of whom are still armed and most of whom have criminal backgrounds.
Some, particularly those who feel betrayed by Prigozhin, might be lured into the regular army. The others would pose a threat to the social order unless they are brought under control through fear or violence. The future looks bleak.
At the time of writing, Wagner posters are being torn down throughout Russia, but that Prigozhin is still alive suggests he still has a role to play. In Belarus, he would be safely out of Putin’s way, but close enough to be of use.
It is unlikely that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko played a significant role in the deal cut between Prigozhin and Putin. Russian sources say that Aleksey Dyumin, the governor of Tula Oblast where Prigozhin’s army stopped, and Nikolai Patrushev, the powerful head of the Russian Security Council, were the chief negotiators. Dyumin is a former Putin bodyguard and viewed by many as a potential successor to Putin who incarnates loyalty, youth and fresh blood.
Lukashenko would have obediently done what his master ordered as the face of the negotiations, thus preserving Putin and his protege from being tainted by association with Prigozhin. If he really does end up in Belarus, Prigozhin might be the catalyst to finally drag Belarusian troops into the war without Lukashenko having to send his regular army, something he has resisted in spite of pressure from Putin.
Imagine a Wagner group re-registered in Minsk, able to recruit Belarusian convicts or otherwise coerce Belarusian soldiers into the war. The number of troops might not be enough to make serious incursions into Ukraine, but would force the Ukrainians to reinforce their northern border, thus taking away soldiers from the front lines in the east and south.
While a successful rebellion would have served Ukraine, at least in the short term, it is likely that a humiliated, but rebooted, Putin would renew attacks with more intensity.
If round one of Prigozhin versus the Russian establishment went to Prigozhin on Saturday morning, Putin had made a comeback by the afternoon. Dog eats dog, but while they hold each other by the tail, neither has a clear advantage. Either way, Ukraine would need even more Western support as Russia teeters on the brink between chaos and absolute dictatorship.
Samantha de Bendern is an associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House and a political commentator on La Chaine Info in France.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS