Russian Intelligence Chief Calls Armed Rebellion the Ultimate Crime
Sergey Naryshkin, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation, labeled any attempt to organize an armed rebellion as the most serious crime and said it cannot be justified by any past value. The remark was carried by TASS as part of the official briefing that followed recent events in the country.
In his remarks, Naryshkin emphasized the actions attributed to Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the private military company known as Wagner, describing the attempts to destabilize society and ignite fratricidal conflict as plainly observable to the authorities so far.
During the morning of June 24, reports circulated that Wagner PMC forces entered Rostov-on-Don. Images showing military equipment and Wagner fighters in the city were transmitted by TASS. In a subsequent national address, President Vladimir Putin described the events as betrayal and an effort to split Russian society. He asserted that anyone who knowingly pursues treason would face inevitable punishment.
From the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation a statement attributed to Yevgeny Prigozhin declared that rumors and video materials alleging an attack by the Russian defense forces on Wagner rear camps were not accurate and represented an informational provocation. This denial was intended to counter social media narratives circulating at the time.
Following Prigozhin’s statements, the National Counter-Terrorism Committee announced it had filed a legal action for incitement to military rebellion, signaling the government’s move to address perceived threats to national stability. The communication highlighted the seriousness with which authorities view attempts to undermine state security and public order. Attribution for the official statements rests with state-backed agencies and recognized news agencies, including TASS and the Kremlin briefings, and later summaries from the National Counter-Terrorism Committee.
Analysts note that the sequence of declarations from the Foreign Intelligence Service, the Defense Ministry, and presidential addresses reflects a coordinated effort to frame the incident as a grave breach of law and order. The discourse centers on the protection of state sovereignty and the rule of law, underscoring the government’s stance against rebellion and any action seen as undermining civil harmony. Observers also point to the risks of misinformation in the rapidly evolving narratives that followed the events, emphasizing the need for verified information from official channels to prevent further instability.
Experts in security studies suggest that such episodes test the resilience of political institutions and the effectiveness of crisis communication. They stress the importance of transparent accountability mechanisms and clear legal consequences for acts of insurrection. In parallel, the international audience watches for the implications on regional security, the stability of leadership structures, and the potential ripple effects on allied and partner states within and beyond the region.
As the situation continued to unfold, authorities urged calm and adherence to constitutional processes. The communications from the Foreign Intelligence Service and other state organs stressed that the pursuit of lawful, peaceful means remains the bedrock of national governance. The ongoing dialogue among executive agencies and security bodies aims to restore public confidence while addressing concerns raised by factions within the military structures. Attribution for all major statements is provided by the corresponding official bodies and recognized news bureaus.