Though the coup attempt and instability seem to have ended, the crisis has certainly weakened the clout and authority of President Putin.
On Friday, June 23, 2023, the Yevgeniy Prigozhin-led Wagner squad of private mercenaries, operating under the direct command of the Kremlin, called for the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In his impending televised address to the nation, the Russian Premier declared the organisation to be a threat to the nation and issued military orders to put an end to the revolt.
What Transpired?
With Bakhmut, everything began. The Wagner group claimed that for the past several months, Russian cadre forces have been shelling the location of the left Wagner soldier in Bakhmut.
The reason why Russia’s forces bombarded the Wagner forces, although both sides are engaged in the same conflict in Ukraine, remains a mystery. We need to examine two significant developments that have occurred in the Russian special operation in Ukraine to comprehend this and the underlying reasons for the Wagner mutiny.
1) Wagner soldiers were stationed at Bakhmut – Not only was the Wagner force’s deployment in Bakhmut in the second half of 2022 a watershed moment for special operations in Ukraine, but it also marked the beginning of growing tensions between the Russian Defence Ministry, in particular Sergei Sougu, and the Wagner force, led by Yevgeny Proigozhin.
The Russian Defence Department thinks Yevgeny Proigozhin is an outsider and shouldn’t be given more power inside the Kremlin. They also think that the rising stature of Proigozhin conflicts with the interests of some defence officials, particularly those like Minister Shoigu and Gerasmikov (head of special operations), who are part of the Russian Defence Department.
These distinctions have been apparent ever since Wagner was sent to Bakhmut. The Russian Defence Department needed more ammunition and other military supplies for Wagner since the combat in Bakhmut was intense. However, the Russian military ministry largely turned down those requests, making it impossible for Wagner to obtain the ammunition they needed to battle Ukrainian soldiers. Yevgeny Proigozhin, the head of Wagner, was extremely critical of the Russian defence ministry’s actions and openly began to criticise Minister Shoigu and Commander Gerasmikov as a result. He also criticised the two for being crooked, brutal, and a traitor and added that they were responsible for the deaths of Wagner soldiers in Ukraine.
The second difference was evident in March 2023, when Wagner alerted the Russian defence establishment that they might depart for Bakhmut since they had not been provided with enough ammunition to defend themselves. However, President Putin’s intervention helped to resolve this subsequently.
The third significant distinction between the two was made during the “Defence Contract” announcement by the Russian Defence Department, which required all Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine to sign a contract with that department to increase their accountability. Additionally, the Russian Defense Ministry stated that this move was made to better ensure the soldiers’ security. Yevgeny Proigozhin, the commander of the Wagners, vehemently rejected this proposal and claimed that the soldiers would not sign the contract because it only applied to the Russian cadre forces, not the mercenaries. Yevgeny Proigozhin added that this would render the forces of the Wagner government dependent on Russian defence authorities for their requirement of ammunition and other military hardware.
And it all came to a head when Yevgeny Proigozhin declared a “March of Justice” and the dissolution of the Russian defence ministry on June 23. Yevgeny Proigozhin even demanded Minister Shoigu be killed and urged other Russian cadre forces to support their cause.
2) Commander Gerasmikov’s appointment as special operations head – This development marked a significant turning point in the disagreements between Wagner and the Russian defence ministry.
Sergei Surovikin’s replacement was Commander Gerasmikov. Since Commander Gerasmikov supports Minister Sergei Sougu, Yevgeny Proigozhin didn’t like this change and openly criticized it. Surovikin was well-liked by Yevgeny Proigozhin and respected within the Wagner community. Proigozhin publicly praised Surovikin’s efforts during his administration and claimed that Surovikin had supplied Wagner with enough ammunition at the time.
Yevgeny Proigozhin was the first person to speak to Wagner soldiers after the mutiny was announced, demonstrating his affection for Surovikin on the day of the uprising. As news broke that the Russian government had detained Commander Surovikin over suspicions of ties to the Wagner, it all became very clear.
Circumstances on June 24
It all began in Bakhmut, where the Wagner soldiers once more grumbled that the Russian defence forces had begun firing at their position. Upon seeing this, the Wagner Chief Prizohin declared an attack on Russian forces, launched his “freedom of justice,” and demanded the resignation of both the Special Operations Director Gerasmikov and Russian Defense Minister Shoigu. Within a short period, a dramatic change occurred, and the Wagner took control of the military headquarters in Voronezh and Rostov, both of which are located in southern Russia.
Soon after, under the command of General Utkin, a sizable convoy of Wagner forces began their march to Moscow.
Mediation by President Lukashenko
Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, intervened after taking stock of the situation and offered to mediate between him and Wagner chief Yevgeny Proigozhin. He also asked Proigozhin to halt his march toward Moscow and to de-escalate the situation.
Later, Yevgeny Proigozhin agreed to this and demanded in exchange the security guarantees of Wagner soldiers. And it was also decided that Yevgeny Proigozhin would depart Moscow for Belarus at the same time.
How would this benefit Belarus?
The threat posed by NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe to Belarus is similar to the one facing Russia. Additionally, Belarus has received significant sanctions from the West thanks to Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime. Many reports suggest that there have been some overt indications that the West and the opposition in Belarus wanted to overthrow the Lukashenko government. Due to all these factors, Belarus is Russia’s ideal ally.
And this is the rationale behind Belarus’ agreement to house Russian nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the West. In a similar vein, we can also comprehend that the deployment of Wagner soldiers would increase Belarus’s military presence while reducing its security concerns.
Was there mutiny?
Given the course of events, it is difficult to see how President Putin will benefit, and it appears that Wagner chief Yevgeny Proigozhin attempted a coup. President Lukashenko recently claimed that Yevgeny Proigozhin, the head of Wagner, had “offered him the position of President of Russia.” If this information is accurate, it is obvious that President Putin was the target of a coup.
The chief of Wagner, Yevgeny Proigozhin, wanted to seize the position of greatest authority in Russia, so the reasons for this are obvious. Additionally, we shouldn’t ignore any potential support Wagner may have received from foreign governments.
The Aftermath
President Putin thanked the Russian people for their support during the unrest in a speech after the crises were resolved. It was further announced that Wagner needed to return to the Russian government their military arsenal and that they had three options for doing so.
1) The first was for Wagner forces to enter into a contract with the Russian Defense Ministry.
2) Wagner forces may travel to Belarus.
3) Wagner forces are allowed to go home.
As things stand, it appears that the coup attempt and instability seem to have ended but the true intent behind the attempt is yet to be clear. However, the crisis has certainly weakened the clout and authority of President Putin. Furthermore, any domestic instability is problematic for Putin’s Russia, given that it is already involved in Ukraine.
(The author is a post-graduate student in International Relations at Kalinga University, Raipur. The opinions expressed are the author’s own)
Dr. Niranjan B Poojar 
Bhagyashree Gupta 
Balaji Subramanian