Putin vs. Prigozhin: a Struggle For Power In Russia.

This past weekend, the ongoing conflict involving Ukraine and Russia took an unexpected turn. Yevgeny Prigozhin accused President Putin of attacking members of his Wagner paramilitary group. It is well known that relations between the Russian army and Wagner are not cordial. On Friday night, rumors of serious unrest between the two parties emerged. On Saturday morning, numerous reports of Wagner forces streaming toward Moscow, seemingly to confront the high command. Barricades were erected to try and prevent any possibility of a coup. As all of this transpired, the Russian government announced that legal proceedings were being filed against him. Then, suddenly his forces turned back towards Rostov, and it was announced that he would be exiled to Belarus and any charges against him would be dropped.

According to an article from today’s New York Times, Prigozhin stated in a rambling audio message that the motivation for the protest was not to overthrow Putin’s government. It was instead a response to a move by the Russian army to force Wagner fighters to be co-opted into the regular army. Nonetheless, Prigozhin’s actions severely threatened Putin’s legitimacy as president. An article from The Guardian adds that Putin is weaker than he has ever been and that aligning himself with Wagner is proving to be a mistake that could lead to him being deposed as leader. Another critical component is how this impacts the fighting in Ukraine; according to another article by the New York Times, there is hope among the Ukrainian military that the current internal strife within Russia could lead to gains on the battlefield. It is an ongoing and complex story that could go in many directions and lead to many globally significant events.

Vladlen Tatarsky and the Rise of Pro-Russian Bloggers.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine last year, a new type of blogger has emerged in Russia. According to a report by CNN, a growing group of Russians are acting as war correspondents despite not having a journalistic background. These bloggers have embedded themselves within Russian units on the front lines in Ukraine and have developed close links to the regular army and the Wagner Group paramilitary group. These bloggers have become a vital source for on-the-ground information about the war, as the Russian Government is notoriously unforthcoming about the actual state of the war. It must also be noted that while all these bloggers are ultranationalists and pro-Putin, they are not afraid to voice their opinion on how the war should be fought.

This is the background to the events that occurred in St Petersburg recently. Vladlen Tatarsky was a prominent member of the military blogging community in Russia. Recently, he received a likeness of himself in the form of a figurine that just so happened to be filled with explosives, killing and injuring many others in a crowded restaurant called Street food bar #1 Cafe. According to a report in the New York Times, Tatarsky was handed the statuette by a woman called Nastya, who was a sculptor, while he was giving a talk to about 100 people. Shortly after the explosion, a woman named Daria Trepova, who, according to Sky News, is a supporter of the jailed anti-corruption activist Alexi Navalny. The moral of this tale appears to be that one should always be careful when accepting suspicious-looking statuettes.

The Wrongful Imprisonment of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

Recently the Russian democracy activist Vladimir Kara-Murza was sentenced to 25 years in prison for what many in the West believe are politically motivated charges. According to a report by the BBC, Kara-Murza was found guilty of “treason” by a Russian court because he spoke to politicians in the United States about Russia committing war crimes in Ukraine. Kara-Murza is a well-known figure in pro-democracy circles in Russia and was close with Boris Nemtsov, another pro-democracy activist who was shot in 2015. Kara-Murza also supported the Global Magnitsky Act, which aims to sanction Russian oligarchs who support President Putin. All of this paints an even grimmer picture of the level of repression in Putin’s Russia.

Truth Social: Where Did the Money Come From?

Last week reports surfaced that federal prosecutors were looking into the finances of Truth Social, the former president Donald Trump’s social media website set up after he was banned from Twitter and Facebook. According to an article by The Guardian, questions are being raised about the source of an $8 million loan made to Trump media by Paxum bank and ES Family Trust. Paxum is owned by Anton Postolnikov, a close relation to Aleksandr Smirnov, a long-time ally of Putin, and has a reputation for providing funding to the pornography industry. This bank appears to do business with some dodgy characters. It also seems that other members of trump world, such as the president’s son Donald Trump Jr and long-time trump allies Kash Patel and Devin Nunes, may know where the money from the loan came from.

A follow-up article in The Guardian states that high-ranking executives within Trump Media are increasingly worried that they could face legal action if loans contained dirty money. One executive even suggested returning the money to avoid any potential legal proceedings. However, this was not done as the money was desperately needed to keep the company solvent. Also, according to a report from Business Insider, Truth Social is laying off employees, most likely due to cash flow issues. It is still unclear if Trump Media has committed any crimes, but the saying “Where there is smoke, there is fire” comes to mind.

The Wagner Group Sanctioned: Putin’s Corrupt Paramilitary

Recently, a mysterious paramilitary group called the Wagner Group, run by a crony of President Putin, has been in the news. Wagner is run by a man named Yevgeny Prigozhin, who, earlier in his life, was in prison after committing a series of robberies in the early 80s. According to an article in The Guardian, Prigozhin excelled in the free-wheeling culture in St Petersburg in the early 1990s. He quickly moved from selling hot dogs to buying up stakes in supermarkets and a liquor store. Eventually, he started managing a restaurant called the Old Customs House, where he made meaningful political connections.

Not long after, Prigozhin started to get involved in military-related issues due to being awarded catering contracts for the army. Shortly afterwards, according to the article in The Guardian, he asked the Russian Ministry of Defense for a parcel of land to train “volunteers” that would have no links to the regular Russian army. The organization quickly became Putin’s go-to option for any off-the-books military operations and gained a bloody reputation in Syria. Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, Wagner has taken a more prominent role within the Russian military. On January 20th, Wagner was sanctioned by the U.S. government as a transnational criminal organization. According to an article in the AP, Wagner allegedly spends over $100 million monthly on the war in Ukraine. It is not clear from the article where precisely this money comes from, but it is a safe assumption that it comes from the Russian state. If the West is to aid Ukraine, limiting the ability of people or entities wishing to provide material support to the Wagner group will be essential.

Sergei Surovikin: Is he Corrupt or Not?

Recently, President Vladimir Putin named Sergei Surovikin as the commander of Russian forces in Ukraine. In many articles announcing his appointment, military sources (mainly the Ministry of Defense (MOD) in the United Kingdom) state that he is corrupt, brutal, and ruthless on the battlefield. According to the New York Times, he served in Chechnya in the early 2000s and commanded Russian forces in Syria, where numerous human rights violations occurred. Also, according to a report in The Guardian, Surovikin led a rifle division that broke barriers set up by pro-democracy protesters during the 1991 attempted coup by Soviet hardliners and killed three people.

It is much harder to pin him down on any concrete allegations of corruption other than the possibility of weapons dealing. Brokering arms is undoubtedly an unsavory business, but without in-depth evidence, it seems a stretch to label Surovikin as corrupt. This raises the issue of media outlets and other organizations stating that a person may be involved in corruption, but fail to back up such allegations with credible evidence. It seems clear that Surovikin is likely a war criminal, but is he corrupt? It is much more difficult to tell without hard facts.