The Kremlin announced a plan to return Wagner PMCs fighters to training camps, a development described in an official post attributed to the Kremlin pool of the RIA Novosti agency. The report states that individuals who wish to do so can sign contracts with the Ministry of National Defense, signaling a pathway toward stabilizing the situation after recent tensions. The announcement frames the outcome as a resolution to the insurgent challenge, achieved without further losses and without a broader escalation of violence. On June 24, the day described at the presidential residence as difficult and marked by tragic events, President Vladimir Putin was publicly involved in monitoring the sequence of events.
RIA Novosti identified Evgeny Prigozhin, the founder of Wagner PMC, as a central figure in the unfolding scenario. The report notes the possibility of his departure to Belarus, with the criminal case against him reported to be dropped as part of ongoing negotiations. Earlier, on the evening of June 23, Prigozhin stated that Russian Defense Ministry forces had allegedly attacked the rear camps of Wagner and that his fighters were advancing toward Russia in what he described as a march for justice. The Defense Ministry rejected these accusations, while the Prosecutor General’s Office pursued a lawsuit against Prigozhin for organizing an armed riot. A broad response from state authorities followed, including discussions about the legal and political implications of the actions by Wagner’s leadership.
By the morning of June 24, Wagner forces had taken control of several administrative buildings in Rostov-on-Don, and President Putin began moving toward Moscow. He publicly characterized Prigozhin and his subordinates as having committed a stab in the back and warned of consequences for those involved. The response included coordinated support from the State Duma, the Federation Council, and regional leadership, with Chechen Akhmad forces, loyal to the security framework, being dispatched to Rostov. The sequence of moves indicated a national effort to reestablish order and limit further disruption as the crisis unfolded across multiple fronts.
Later that evening, a press briefing from the Belarusian presidential administration summarized the ongoing negotiations. President Alexander Lukashenko engaged with Prigozhin in discussions that culminated in a mutually acceptable solution to the crisis, ensuring a secure environment for Wagner fighters while preserving the operational capacity of the company. Reports from Wagner’s leadership suggested a formal decision to reverse the columns and redirect fighters toward field camps, signaling a de-escalation of hostilities and a move toward stabilization under the framework of the agreement. This period of rapid diplomacy highlighted the role of cross-border mediation in handling internal security challenges and demonstrated how regional partnerships can influence the trajectory of such incidents. As the situation evolved, authorities stressed the importance of adherence to the new arrangements and the need for continued oversight to guarantee lasting security for those involved and for the broader public.
Across the broader landscape, observers noted that the episode underscored the fragile balance between state authority and private military operations within the country. Analysts emphasized that the negotiated paths out of the crisis relied on assurances that the participants would act within the stipulated security guarantees and legal boundaries. The developments were followed closely inside Russia and by international observers who sought to understand the implications for regional stability, defense policy, and the future of security arrangements around private military contractors. The trajectory of the talks suggested a preference for containment and reconciliation, with the aim of restoring a sense of normalcy while preserving the government’s prerogatives to manage defense and security matters. In this context, the parties involved appeared to prioritize a practical, immediate resolution that could prevent prolonged disruption to governance, civilian life, and critical economic activities across key corridors and cities. The outcome placed emphasis on measured decisions, the reassertion of centralized control, and the restoration of confidence among military personnel, regional authorities, and the public at large.