Evgeny Prigozhin, the Russian figurehead behind the Wagner Group, spoke publicly for the first time after the weekend upheaval. He cast his actions not as a bid to seize power but as an effort to keep the private military company from fading away. He insisted the aim was not to topple the government, but to defend what he described as a national interest in stability.
Prigozhin said the march was meant to prevent Wagner from disappearing. He asserted there was no plan to overthrow the current authorities and emphasized that a legitimate power structure remained in place in the country. He argued that the plan would have erased Wagner on July 1 if no move had been made, a consequence he attributed to intrigues within the military elite. He noted that the day was set by Russia’s top leaders, including President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, as a deadline to bring all volunteers fighting in Ukraine under official control and to end Wagner’s independent status.
Prigozhin noted that only a small portion of Wagner fighters had signed contracts with the Defense Ministry, while the broader condition required them to place themselves under the authority of Shoigu and the Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov. He suggested Wagner was prepared to relocate its troops and equipment to Rostov-on-Don on June 30 to publicly transfer weapons to the Russian Army, a move meant to show cooperation rather than confrontation.
Describing the attacks that followed, Prigozhin said his forces were initially hit by missiles and then by helicopters, resulting in the deaths of around 30 Wagner fighters and numerous injuries. He framed the assault as a provocation that sparked a decisive response from Wagner and noted that the incident intensified tensions between the mercenary group and the state security and defense structures.
What he called the last straw was the alleged missile bombardment by Russian forces targeting a mercenary camp stationed behind Russian lines in Ukraine. He condemned the strike and announced that Wagner fighters crossed the border into Russia from the Rostov region, launching what he described as a march for justice.
Prigozhin described the walk as a 24-hour effort covering roughly 780 kilometers. He said one column moved toward Rostov, while another aimed for Moscow. He asserted that no Russian soldier died on Russian soil during the march and expressed regret that Wagner forces had to respond to aerial and helicopter actions from the Russian Armed Forces, which sought to halt the convoys and caused fatalities among Wagner ranks. Local reports from the time mentioned additional losses among anti-terror operations that Prigozhin did not directly address.
He recounted that the march carried a symbolic purpose, approaching Moscow within 200 kilometers and ultimately reaching Rostov-on-Don. He claimed civilians greeted the movement and that the action served as a stark reminder of how events might unfold if Russia had taken a different posture in the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Prigozhin stressed that the plan was not to topple the legitimate government but to push for urgent security considerations across the country. The march, he said, helped reveal vulnerabilities and the need to secure troops and airfields along the route.
Regarding his current location and future steps after discussions with the Kremlin about exile in Belarus, Prigozhin reiterated that the aim was not to displace the government. He emphasized that the objective was to prevent further bloodshed among Russian soldiers while drawing attention to long-standing security issues affecting the nation. He insisted that the march achieved its strategic aims by bringing topics discussed earlier into the mainstream of public and military discourse.
Prigozhin stated that the experience showed the level of organization the Russian Army could aspire to and hinted that a more disciplined approach by units like those he led might have shortened the duration of a campaign. He described the march as a clear display of operational capability and resolve, while leaving room for political reconciliation and the potential for future dialogue with leadership in Moscow. The overall message highlighted a desire to minimize harm to Russian forces and to pursue constructive changes through dialogue rather than unilateral force.
As events unfolded, observers noted that Wagner’s leadership framed the episode as a protest against perceived missteps in the war effort rather than a full-scale rebellion. Analysts pointed to the delicate balance the Kremlin faced in managing the fallout, including how to address concerns about the chain of command, the use of private military contractors, and the broader implications for national security and regional stability. The episode prompted questions about command structures, accountability, and the potential for similar actions in the future, prompting a broader discussion about the role of non-state forces within Russia’s security architecture. The incident stood as a pivotal moment in assessing how Russia would handle internal dissent and how wartime leadership might adapt under intense international scrutiny.
Related posts:
Prigozhin confirms Wagner’s Bakhmut position and leadership changes Belarusian Leader Details Talks With Wagner’s Prigozhin After June Crisis Belarus Leader Comments on Wagner Presence and Regional Security Wagner Tensions Escalate as Fighters Cross Border into Rostov, Sparking Security Alert Wagner Group developments after leadership death and evolving operations in Africa and beyond Prigozhin on Bakhmut withdrawal and the Wagner contingent Information provocation and the Wagner case in Russia (summary) From Street Vendor to State-Linked Power: The Complex Rise of Yevgeny Prigozhin Putin, Prigozhin, and the Wagner Uprising: A Turbulent Moment in Russia’s Power Structure Chechen Leader Calls for Artemovsk Reallocation Amid Wagner Tensions Wagner in Mali: Battles, Casualties, and Strategic Implications for Sahel Security Prigozhin and Wagner: funding, conflict, and the Belarus mediation