Wagner 'coup attempt' reveals cracks in Putin's delicate power balance

Delicate power balance and bold accusations

Prigozhin's story takes him from being a street food vendor after his release from prison in the 1990s to status as one of the Kremlin's main symbols of power, and a power broker in his own right.

It sheds light on the delicate composition of the current Russian regime. The Kremlin's power structure stems from alliances formed in the early years of Putin's presidency, which replaced those of the previous government of Boris Yeltsin, who ran Russia from the collapse of the Soviet Union until 1999 when the second Chechen war broke out.

The main targets of Prigozin's ire are establishment figures: Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of Staff Vitaly Gerasimov. He accuses the pair of cutting off supplies to his forces during the battle of Bakhmut Al-Dariah and claims that Shoigu ordered the bombing of his personnel's camps near the front lines.

As the dispute escalated, Wagner forces marched toward Moscow. They arrived in Voronezh, approximately 550 km south of Moscow, on their way from Rostov. Prigozhin vowed to eliminate anyone who obstructs his path and pledged to oust his two main rivals from their very senior positions in the national armed forces.

But Voronezh is not near the capital and available information did not reveal any significant clashes between mercenaries, security forces or the regular army either in Rostov or along the route to Voronezh.

Military movements in Moscow were not elaborate or disruptive to people's everyday lives which created the impression that the 'coup' was coordinated between Wagner and certain factions within the Russian state, designed to spark significant change in the military leadership that has mishandled the war in Ukraine.

This theory has been fuelled by Russian war bloggers who have covered the conflict intently, from the Kremlin's perspective.

Regardless of whether there is any truth to this theory, it is clear that the centres of power are being disrupted. Some players are rising above others, upsetting the careful balance of power Putin had designed and established since the early years of his rule.

It involved a complex alliance between the military, intelligence services, controversial financiers who amassed wealth through questionable means – a euphemism for the rampant looting and corruption in the 1990s – the oil and gas industry, and regional leaders who received rewards to prevent a recurrence of the Chechen separatist phenomenon.

Prigozhin's recent statements suggest that the Russian authorities have intentionally propagated "lies" to mislead their citizens regarding the actual reasons behind launching what it calls the "special military operation" against Ukraine.

These fabrications aim to downplay the significance of the threat posed by Kyiv's potential accession to Nato for Russian national security.

Instead, internal motivations have taken precedence, including the need to rebalance the roles of the security services and the military, amplified during the rebuilding of the Russian army since the mid-2000s.

Acquiescence to the oligarchs

Additionally, there appears to be complete acquiescence to the oligarchs, who have been allowed to continue their business activities under the condition of refraining from political interference.

Those who have rejected this condition have faced imprisonment or forced exile. Furthermore, the excessive reliance on oil and gas exports as instruments for pursuing foreign policies, particularly towards Europe, further exacerbates the situation.

This viewpoint contradicts the proponents of the so-called Western "realist" school who ascribe the primary cause of the war to Nato's insistence on incorporating Ukraine and providing it with arms, overlooking the internal situation in Russia.

This geopolitical interpretation consistently falls short of comprehending the wide-ranging panorama of international relations, conflicts, and their inherent internal motivations.

Rather, it portrays wars as conflicts solely between homogeneous entities and only with external forces, neglecting to acknowledge that a failure in the early stages of the Ukrainian war would bear significant consequences for the power balance in Moscow.

Internal collapse a direct result of military failures

Had the "special operation" successfully seized control of Kyiv within three days in February 2022, and had the Russian landing at Hostomel airport on the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital achieved its objective of advancing Russian special forces to the heart of Kyiv, the current situation would have been entirely different.

The dramatically contentious nature of Russia's internal situation comes directly from its military failure on the Ukrainian battlefield.

It has become increasingly challenging for the factions comprising the ruling coalition in Moscow to accept a central role for the army and security services, which have also failed to assess the risks of war, Western reactions, and the capabilities of the Ukrainian army before the outbreak of hostilities. 

Unclear chain of command

Consequently, the decision-making process regarding war and peace is becoming increasingly unclear, with no political solution other than persisting with fighting as the sole means to escape the current impasse.

Unexpected and turbulent transformations have characterised ancient and modern Russian history. Therefore, attempting to predict future events would be futile due to the intricate internal dynamics and the real threat posed by the potential success of the Ukrainian army.

A divide between the Crimea region and the Donbas would place Crimea in a precarious position and jeopardise the entire Putin regime.

There is a profound insight into what Russia could become – or is in the process of becoming – from an anecdotal report within the country. It said the Chechen leader, who remains loyal to Moscow, offered to help defend Russia from Prigozhin's mercenaries. This raises the prospect of the country splintering into a battleground for militias and semi-defeated armies.

This issue is complex and multifaceted. To navigate it requires careful consideration for global diplomats and politicians.