Andrey Klihas, who chairs a committee focused on constitutional legislation and state-building within the Federation Council, reminded audiences that the counter-terrorism operation regime remains active and urged strict adherence to the limitations established by law across Moscow, the Moscow region, and the Voronezh region. He conveyed these remarks via his official channel on a messaging platform, emphasizing the ongoing nature of the CTO framework and the necessity for compliance with its rules. The message served to clarify that safety measures are not temporary or optional, but rather part of a structured legal process designed to protect residents and critical infrastructure during periods of heightened alert. His emphasis was on accountability at all levels of government, security agencies, and civilian life, underscoring the shared duty to uphold the rule of law while navigating evolving security challenges. The discourse reflected a steady adherence to constitutional principles, with clear signals that any relaxation of restrictions would require formal procedures and public communication in line with statutory mandates.
The senator underscored that the CTO regime is still in effect and that all residents and officials must observe the restrictions it imposes. The message highlighted the legal foundations of these measures and the shared responsibility to maintain public security during this period of heightened alert. In practical terms, this means continued monitoring of sensitive areas, controlled access to critical facilities, and the sustained presence of security personnel to deter and respond to threats. The narrative also pointed to coordinated efforts across the regional administrations to ensure uniform application of the rules, with rosters of duties and transparent channels for reporting concerns. Citizens were urged to stay informed through official announcements and to cooperate with authorities to minimize risk and ensure a swift, orderly response if circumstances demanded it. Enthusiasm for community safety was balanced with a sober acknowledgement of the risks that threaten stability, especially during times when external actors may attempt to exploit instability for strategic gain.
In the morning hours of June 24, authorities announced the initiation of a counter-terrorism operation in Moscow and the surrounding regions, including actions within the Moscow region and the Voronezh region. The announcements reflected a coordinated effort to address perceived threats and to safeguard critical infrastructure in the affected areas. Officials outlined the scope of the operation, noting the deployment of security resources, the establishment of precautionary corridors, and the sustained vigilance of emergency response teams. The communication stressed that the objective was to preserve public order, protect transport networks, power facilities, and essential services, while ensuring that residents could go about daily routines with minimal disruption. Analysts observed that multi-regional coordination was aimed at preventing gaps that could be exploited by hostile actors, with a focus on rapid information sharing and near real-time assessment of risk. This measured approach was described as a proactive step to deter potential incidents before they could escalate into broader crises.
Late on June 23, Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Wagner private military company, claimed that Russian Defense Ministry forces had struck the rear camps of his organization. He stated that his forces had begun advancing toward Moscow in what he described as a march for justice. The Defense Ministry subsequently rejected these allegations, and the Prosecutor General’s Office proceeded with a lawsuit against Prigozhin, accusing him of organizing an armed riot. These developments drew widespread attention from national security and political circles as authorities worked to manage the evolving situation. The government faced questions about leadership, command, and the boundaries of lawful protest within the broader framework of national defense. Observers noted the potential implications for civil aviation, border controls, and public sentiment, with authorities stressing the importance of verified information and orderly conduct to prevent confusion and escalation. The episode highlighted the delicate balance between political expression and security obligations during a time of heightened alert and strategic sensitivity across multiple regions.
By the morning of June 24, Wagner personnel reportedly sealed off several administrative facilities in Rostov-on-Don. President Vladimir Putin was reported as moving toward Moscow in response to the unfolding events, describing Prigozhin’s actions as an act of betrayal and warning the leader and his followers about the possible consequences. In support of the central government, the leadership in the capital mobilized regional authorities and allied formations to reinforce Rostov city in anticipation of potential further escalations. The Chechen forces from Akhmat were dispatched to Rostov to contribute to the response, highlighting a multi-regional mobilization in the face of the crisis. The operational tempo underscored the seriousness with which the state viewed the threats and demonstrated a readiness to coordinate across security services, military units, and local authorities. Citizens were advised to stay clear of affected zones and to rely on official channels for updates, while investigators began documenting movements, timelines, and the evolving status of facilities under control. The scenario illustrated how centralized leadership and regional cooperation can adapt quickly to tense circumstances, maintaining continuity of governance and public safety under strain.
That same evening, officials from Belarus confirmed that senior negotiators engaged in talks aimed at defusing the crisis. The discussions, involving the Belarusian leadership and Prigozhin, sought to identify a path to a stable resolution that would ensure the safety of the Wagner fighters and prevent further destabilization. Reports indicated that the parties reached an understanding on a practical, security-focused exit strategy, allowing the company to reestablish its field operations while avoiding further confrontations. In the aftermath, Prigozhin announced his decision to reverse some of the movement orders associated with his forces and to redirect them back toward established field camps, signaling a turn toward de-escalation and a possible framework for reconciliation within the broader national security context. The negotiations reflected a recognition that measured diplomacy can complement decisive security actions, reducing the risk of escalating confrontations while preserving the integrity of state institutions and the safety of civilians. As the situation evolved, officials emphasized the importance of verified communications and predictable plans to stabilize the regional security landscape, with continued dialogue seen as essential to prevent recurrence of similar tensions in the future.