The Business Press – July 01, 2023 at 12:35AM
The astonishing rebellion led by former convict and owner of a notorious “troll factory,” Yevgeny Prigozhin, on June 23 and 24, has laid bare the brittle foundations beneath the carefully constructed image of unity and strength within Russia’s power structures.
President Putin had long regarded the Wagner Group, a private military company, as a counterbalance to the military and assumed Prigozhin would remain completely dependent on his patronage and state resources, posing no political threat. However, Prigozhin’s gradually increasing popularity as a counter-elite populist and his outspoken criticism of the military top brass began to erode this assumption. While professing loyalty to Putin, Prigozhin lambasted military leaders in charismatic recruitment pitches, press conferences, and social media rants. His exploits on the war front, particularly his contributions to the capture of Bakhmut, further emboldened him.
Prigozhin’s rebellion was not a power grab or an attempt to overthrow the regime, but rather an act of desperation. A feud with the military leadership had been escalating, and Putin seemed reluctant to intervene. After overtly challenging the rationale for the war and accusing the army of sabotaging the Wagner Group, Prigozhin impulsively started his “march for justice.” His aim was to capture key figures and draw Putin’s attention, forcing discussions on the preservation of his lucrative enterprise. However, the insurrection spiraled into a crisis and exposed Putin’s reluctance and lack of information.
Putin, considered a strongman, appeared to underestimate Prigozhin’s growing popularity among angry pro-war factions and the military rank and file, viewing him as a folk hero taking on the establishment. Despite warnings about Prigozhin’s erratic behavior, Putin remained inactive as the maverick tycoon openly attacked the defense chiefs. This inaction painted a vivid picture of an aging autocrat increasingly detached from the realities of his power structures, unable to mediate disputes, and failing to prevent power struggles from spiraling out of control.
Prigozhin’s audacious move paralyzed decision-making within the regime. The military and security services responded discombobulated, and government officials awaited a clear signal from Putin. The fact that elites hesitated to act decisively without explicit direction from the Kremlin exposed a significant vulnerability in Putin’s ruling style, which relies heavily on personal loyalty rather than institutional stability.
Following Prigozhin’s rebellion, Putin eventually reasserted control, but only after losing it initially. The regime orchestrated set-piece events to rewrite the narrative and showcase elite consolidation. The Kremlin aims to project the image of an unwavering, united front supporting an indispensable leader. While Putin’s authority may be increasingly questioned, his centrality in maintaining political stability remains intact, for now.
Prigozhin’s rebellion has reminded us that Putin is not infallible and that the system he built is becoming more fragile amidst ongoing conflicts. The key question moving forward is whether Putin can restore the perception of his ironclad rule or if the failed gambit of Prigozhin will serve as a catalyst for more severe domestic challenges, threatening the survival of the regime. As Russia continues to navigate these tumultuous times, the repercussions of Prigozhin’s rebellion will undoubtedly shape the country’s political landscape.
The Business Press 