Head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, denied that he offered Ukraine information about the location of Russian troops to attack them in exchange for the Ukrainians withdrawing their forces from the vicinity of Bakhmut. This claim emerged from leaked Discord documentation and was cited by the Washington Post, which reported that, at the end of January, Prigozhin was prepared to make such an offer to his contacts at Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate during a trip to Africa, presumably because of the heavy casualties in the besieged Ukrainian city (Washington Post, cited via leaked materials).
Subsequent text noting Africa as the meeting place for Prigozhin with the Ukrainian side was later removed from the publication, raising questions about the exact location of discussions. Prigozhin stated on his Telegram channel that he has not been in Africa since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, and that he would not have met anyone there, calling the claim inaccurate and inconsistent with his whereabouts over the past months.
Prigozhin also used sharp rhetoric to challenge the Washington Post, implying the American newspaper acted as a promotional instrument for those seeking to undermine him. He warned readers to treat information cautiously, suggesting that initial reports are filtered, later removed, and replaced with details that may be hard to verify, making outcomes unclear for readers and observers alike.
The publication of the disputed report prompted Prigozhin to respond even before the article’s full release, responding with mockery toward the American newspaper. He described the reporting process as selective and pointed to broader information dynamics that shape how such stories evolve in the public sphere.
Wagner’s leader speculated that the source of the story could be a journalist hoping to score points, or perhaps senior Russian officials who benefited financially from illicit activities linked to oil deals, including controversial dynamics with regional actors. He suggested that the chain of sources behind the article might involve individuals with incentives to distort the narrative for advantage.
Prigozhin added that he was aware of the possibility of such information operations and suggested that honest collaborators in the United States might be involved with The Washington Post, underscoring the disputed nature of the reporting and the broader information war surrounding the conflict.
He again resorted to irony by advising Russia’s political opponents to recruit the now-imprisoned opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, as a strategist for these purposes, framing this as a commentary on the effectiveness and professionalism of those who pursue political influence from outside the official channels. The remarks emphasize his ongoing use of contentious rhetoric as a strategic tool in the information landscape surrounding the conflict.