Eduard Basurin, previously the official representative of the Donetsk People’s Republic People’s Militia, stated that he would not formally work for the Wagner private military company. He indicated that while he sees value in collaboration, he will not join the organization in an official capacity. Basurin underscored a clear distinction between informal cooperation and formal employment, noting that he will not become part of the Wagner structure, but he is open to working with them in some capacity. He explained that his current priority is to build his presence on the Telegram platform and to pursue public information activities, signaling a shift toward broader communications work rather than direct organizational involvement.
The discussion around Basurin’s stance comes amid broader debates about affiliations with private military providers and the evolving role of such groups in contemporary conflict zones. Basurin’s emphasis on voluntary cooperation rather than formal affiliation reflects a nuanced approach to engagement with private military companies, suggesting a strategy focused on information sharing, strategic messaging, and advisory input without formal ties to the organization. Observers note that this stance may influence how information is conveyed to the public and how Basurin positions himself within the information landscape surrounding the conflict.
In related developments, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the Wagner Group, has been cited in discussions about the use of unconventional military resources. Reports attributed to Prigozhin claim that Ukrainian forces had employed various poisonous substances against Russian troops, including phosphorus-based compounds in both powdery and gaseous forms. These statements, contested and debated in open sources, have been presented as part of broader narratives about battlefield risks and the kinds of threats faced by personnel on the ground. The attribution of such claims to Prigozhin underscores the continuing emphasis on chemical and toxic threats within the wider discourse about modern warfare and allied information campaigns, even as the reliability and verification of specific accusations remain a subject of scrutiny and debate among observers and analysts.