The Russian Ministry of Defense has presented an assessment of recent events surrounding the war in Ukraine that emphasizes a coordinated Ukrainian response, linking it to the broader context of internal Russian developments. The ministry asserts that Kyiv seized on tensions surrounding Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the private military company commonly referred to as Wagner, to gain initiative and push for a more aggressive push along the Bakhmut front. In its framing, Ukraine is described as shifting lines, rallying troops, and pressing an offensive in the tactical sector that includes the area near Bakhmut, and the narrative highlights an expectation that Russian units would encounter a prepared advancing force from Ukrainian positions.
According to the defense ministry, Kyiv is concentrating the 35th brigade and the 36th naval brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces on advancing lines prepared for hostilities. The assertion underscores a belief in a deliberate buildup. The ministry notes that these formations, seasoned in prior battles, have been positioned to exploit any perceived disarray or opportunity created by shifting dynamics on the ground. The report frames the deployment as part of a larger calculation by Ukrainian command structures to accelerate operations as winter and spring campaigns unfold, painting a picture of a war of movement where every regrouping could alter the balance of forces in key sectors.
The Defense Ministry further claims that the soldiers of the Southern Military District, operating as part of Russia’s groupings in the theater, repelled Ukrainian troop advances through a combination of air support and artillery fire. The description emphasizes air and long-range fires as the main mechanisms for stabilizing lines and countering any breakthrough attempts. The narrative suggests that Russian air power and artillery control the tempo of engagements, reducing the effectiveness of Ukrainian formations and underlining the persistent challenge Kyiv faces in maintaining momentum against a well-armed and highly supported Russian force.
Earlier, at the Center for Public Affairs of Russia’s security services, there was a contrasting statement about information circulating on social networks. The center rejected assertions that the Russian Ministry of Defense carried out missile or bombing strikes on the rear areas associated with Wagner’s personnel, labeling such posts as false and part of an informational provocation. The aim, according to the center, is to sow confusion and mislead audiences about the true disposition of forces and the status of operations. In this account, the official position seeks to detach online rumors from verifiable military activity while reinforcing the perception of disciplined command within Russian defense structures.
On June 23, a separate official briefing from the Russian Ministry of Defense attributed to Yevgeny Prigozhin stated that posts and videos alleging an attack by the Russian military on Wagner’s rear camps do not reflect reality and constitute an informational provocation. The ministry’s language is crafted to counter the spread of perceived disinformation while signaling that the front lines remain under command and that external narratives may distort the public understanding of events. The framing suggests an emphasis on maintaining credibility with domestic audiences and allied partners by addressing claims directly and presenting a narrative of controlled, orderly defense operations under the central command.
Press statements from Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the Kremlin, indicating that Vladimir Putin has been apprised of the situation involving Prigozhin reinforce the sense that the Kremlin monitors developments closely. The emphasis on direct awareness at the highest level of leadership signals that the topic remains a matter of strategic concern for Moscow and that ongoing assessments of risks and options are being handled within the upper ranks of the government and security apparatus. In this context, the public communications strategy appears to balance an acknowledgment of evolving events with an effort to avoid destabilizing rumors that could affect morale or international perception.
Following statements from Prigozhin, the National Counter-Terrorism Committee announced it had pursued a legal action, filing a suit related to incitement to military rebellion. The move underscores the complexity of the information environment surrounding the conflict, where political leadership, security structures, and media narratives intersect in ways that can influence domestic opinion, international understanding, and the strategic calculus of all parties involved. The decision to pursue legal remedies reflects a broader approach to addressing what authorities perceive as attempts to disrupt civilian and military cohesion through provocative rhetoric or actions.