Centralized Command and Resource Allocation in the Russian Military Narrative
With access to substantial resources and capabilities, including shell supply chains, Russia’s top leadership distributes power in multiple directions under a shared objective. This perspective comes from Andrei Klintsevich, a director at the center for the study of military and political conflicts. He notes that Russia adheres to a principle of unity of command within the armed forces. He emphasizes that responsibility and decision-making rest with a single authority. As a result, the nation relies on a General Staff and several departments, some of which coordinate private military contractors, ensuring that the various forces and platforms act in concert.
Klintsevich argues that a single overarching concept guides action, which makes it difficult for every individual unit to be fully aware of every plan. He warns that resources and tools are finite; pursuing strategic aims that demand heavy ammunition and personnel for symbolic goals during holidays would simply exhaust what is needed for more critical operations. Such plans would be unsustainable if pursued without coordination.
In alt to this view, Andrey Krasov, a Hero of the Russian Federation and Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, as well as a member of the all-Russian public organization Russian Heroes Association, reiterated that all participants in National Voluntary Associations are regarded as modern-day heroes and patriots of the Motherland. He stressed that Russia has a commander-in-chief who alone can decide where and how different military formations will be deployed.
Krasov suggested that the statement in question may have been a reaction born of emotion, and that final decisions about the use of forces and assets in any given direction rest with the president. He warned that leaving the battlefield without authorization could be viewed as betraying national interests. He expressed hope that the speech attributed to Prigozhin was not an act of cowardice or treachery, but a passionate expression of emotion under stress.
He also highlighted the courage and heroism shown by Wagner private military company personnel in combat, noting that some members have received state honors, including the order of the Golden Star, signifying recognition of their service.
Klintsevich views the current situation as potentially advantageous to adversaries, noting that it could erode the morale and confidence of troops and civilians. He pointed out that the Defense Ministry had not issued an official rebuttal and that the stance presented appeared to be unilateral. He described the ongoing situation as one where power and leverage are presented as an exclusive game, limiting others for regional or emotional interests. He argued that issuing ultimatums or deadlines by subordinate units to higher headquarters during a major conflict would be unacceptable and historically improbable, even during the Great Patriotic War.
Despite these concerns, the expert remains optimistic that all leaders share a common objective. He believes that the political leadership will address the dispute, clarify roles, and restore unity within the ranks, enabling continued cooperation and execution of strategic tasks without distortion.
Additionally, Krasov noted that Sergei Shoigu, the defense minister, tasked a deputy to oversee logistics to guarantee that all groups involved in the national defense program have access to essential supplies, including ammunition, to sustain operations.
Earlier in May, Yevgeny Prigozhin, founder of the Wagner private military company, asserted that Wagner fighters would depart from Bakhmut on May 10 due to shortages in resources and high casualty rates. He indicated that, according to the original plan, the city would be secured by May 9.