The mercenaries’ march to Moscow may have ended, but the short-lived armed rebellion has exposed deep weaknesses inside the Kremlin and undermined Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 23-year rule like never before.
The crisis was unprecedented in Russia’s recent history and may forever tarnish the image of the country’s strongman president, analysts told NBC News. With this authoritarian veneer besmirched by the consequences of his own war in Ukraine and two decades of a divide and rule approach, it’s unclear what’s next for Putin.
“This is a devastating blow to Putin’s image as a strongman,” said Bill Browder, the American-born human rights lawyer and leading Putin critic. “If a warlord with just 25,000 men is able to take over several cities in Russia and make it to Moscow unopposed, it shows that Putin’s authority as a dictator is completely fake.”
Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia under then-President Barack Obama, agreed that even this fleeting display of insubordination would gravely hurt the Russian president.
“I don’t think he’s mortally weakened,” said McFaul, also a former Obama adviser who specialized in Russia. “I think he can survive this. But he is much weaker today than he was just 24 hours ago.”
Members of Wagner group sit atop of a tank in a street in Rostov-on-Don, Russia The mercenaries behind the rebellion were moving toward the capital before they turned back.Stringer / AFP via Getty Images ‘Who can Putin trust?’ This is new ground for Putin’s Russia, until now only troubled by the occasional unarmed protest swiftly crushed by police. By contrast, in a few short hours, Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner mutineers were able to overrun a key Russian city, shoot down several military aircraft and leave the Kremlin scrambling to defend the capital.
The few Russian troops not deployed in Ukraine were seemingly unable or unwilling to thwart Prigozhin’s advance, with his fighters even cheered by some locals.
The revolt’s abrupt resolution may only add to the questions now hanging over the Kremlin, not least because of Putin’s apparent willingness to pardon Prigozhin — sending him to Belarus and dropping charges against his fighters — just hours after accusing him of stabbing Russia in the back.
A closer look at the man behind the armed rebellion in Russia The situation that unfolded in Russia over the past 24 hours was the most dramatic political development to take place in decades. It was the kind of sudden crisis that at one stage looked like it was evoking the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the 1993 constitutional crisis that saw troops loyal to then-President Boris Yeltsin fire tank shells at the offices of Parliament.
Prigozhin called it a “rebellion” against Russia’s Defense Ministry, led by his rival Sergei Shoigu. The mercenary chief was careful not to criticize Putin, but his advance was a clear threat to the Russian president, who denounced it as such and vowed to “neutralize” the uprising.
While this was playing out, a senior American military official told NBC News it was “a very dangerous time” and “it all depends on how the military acts — the next 72 hours are critical.” The best way to understand what happened is to see it as an attempted Mafia takeover, the official said, with a loyal soldier who has risen through the ranks seeking more power for himself.
The mercenaries got within 125 miles of Moscow before making the shock announcement that they were turning back.
But this maverick act of revolt from one of Putin’s former close allies has presented Russians with an alternative narrative for the war in Ukraine and a glimpse at the weakness of the state.
Prigozhin preceded his advance on Moscow with public defiance of Kremlin propaganda, denouncing the invasion as an unjustified attempt by elites to plunder Ukraine’s material assets — resulting in the needless deaths of untold thousands of Russians.
The Russian people, its military and elites will not forget Prigozhin’s searing criticisms, much less the vulnerabilities his uprising exposed. “What’s done cannot be undone,” as the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank, said in a briefing.
Yes. Countries where the observable reality aligns closer with the official message. The more divergence, the higher the importance of the official message to be heard and uncontradicted, in order to maintain the shared reality within the country. The closer the message to what people see and feel around them, the less important the message is.
For example, in a country where people make ends meet with great difficulty it would take persistent message that the economy is doing well to convince them in that. People can see that it’s difficult to make ends meet. If the official message stops contradicting that reality, the reality will become more apparent. In contrast in a country where people have high disposable income and the official message on the economy is that things are doing well, the two align. If the official message stops, the reality keeps being the same, people keep noticing that they’re doing well. And so the official message wouldn’t significantly affect the shared reality among the people of that country. Therefore it isn’t as important. Reality speaks for itself if you will.