A Russian general was privy to Prigozhin’s plans, the New York Times reported. Sergey Surovikhin has no evidence for his alarmist thesis, but the newspaper admits there is a motive.
No time? Blue news in a nutshell for you
- The New York Times, citing anonymous officials, writes that Russian General Sergei Sulovikhin was informed in advance of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s march on Moscow.
- The newspaper does not provide evidence, but only attempts rebuttable explanations.
- The New York Times itself admits that Washington has a penchant for discrediting Churovkin.
- Suvorykin’s ouster would benefit Ukraine, as the general is considered “more competent and unobtrusive” than his colleagues.
This is a very strong piece “New York Times” (NYT) brings: “Russian general knew about mercenary boss’s rebel plans, US officials say,” media headlines.
The NYT claims that Sergei Surovikhin was informed in advance of the march in Moscow, citing anonymous sources who claim to have learned this from US intelligence reports. Now they have to find out if the general was also involved in this planning.
There is no evidence for this report, but the conclusions: Surovikhin’s complicity is “the latest sign of trench warfare and a sign of a major rupture that has characterized the Russian military leadership since the start of Putin’s war in Ukraine”.
As an explanation for the thesis, “NYT” Surovikhin and Prigozhin have known each other for a long time, because they already fought together in Syria. The general was frustrated that he was sidelined after the successful Russian withdrawal from Kherson.
Conspiracy theory: “Suddenly no one?”
A former US ambassador to Russia says there must be a conspiracy: “Think how easy it was to take Rostov,” says Michael McFall. “There are armed security guards all over Russia, and suddenly nobody is doing anything?”
However, the diplomat makes it a little easier: according to the minutes of the opposition Russian-language portal, Wagner’s troops took Rostov by surprise, including the headquarters for the Southern Military District. “Medusa” From Riga. The mercenaries left early in the morning without encountering any resistance.
In contrast to Vorononezh, the city has not initiated any anti-terrorist operations. At headquarters, after capturing the city, Prigozhin first held talks with two high-ranking officials: Deputy Defense Minister Yunus-Pek Yevkurov and Deputy Head of the Ministry Vladimir Alekseev.
That’s why Wagner got off the ground so easily
After the failure of these negotiations, Prigozhin and some of his men moved on. As soon as the departure of Wagner’s mercenaries is announced, they are discharged like heroes. When the local police regained control, they were insulted: people called them “traitors” and “disgraceful”. will be said On the contrary.
What McFaul overlooks: Keeping teenagers or soldier moms in check is one thing. However, it is simply unrealistic for the police or Homeland Security to oppose a group of Wagners with heavy weapons and extensive combat experience. This explains the lack of resistance – and Moscow has already responded: the National Defense Forces are now being supplied with heavy equipment.
The Kremlin had nothing to counter the insurgents — except for helicopters and planes, and pilots accounted for only 13 Russian casualties in the uprising. General Surovikin even recorded a video asking Prigozhin to surrender. But an anonymous NYT official says the body language looks like a “hostage video.”
Washington wants to damage Surovikin’s reputation
It’s more explanation and less knowledge. While the “NYT” zeroes in on the Russian general, another piece of information in the article is presented as collateral damage: so the West only has “initial” information – not really wanting to publicly comment on the uprising.
Reason: Avoid giving new meaning to Vladimir Putin’s narrative that the West is responsible for the rebellion. “NYT” in the same article explains why the newspaper raises the convincing thesis that Surovikin may have been Birgozhin’s accomplice.
“American officials are interested in disseminating information that undermines the reputation of General Surovikhin, whom they consider more competent and unobtrusive than other members of the military leadership,” the NYT itself writes.
Why should Putin still care?
Vladimir Putin is doing everything he can to make the upheaval appear to be the sole responsibility of the Wagner group. In several speeches, the Russian president has praised the army, police and other security forces for standing shoulder to shoulder to stop the insurgency.
Rostov’s images not only speak a different language, but also convey that they are pilots will be said Wagner would have refused to rise up against him, or the local police would have willingly given way to the march. Prigozhin’s accusations that the Ministry of Defense is incompetent are now well-known – no longer a secret.
All of these should be warning signs for Putin. It remains to be seen whether Surovik has reason to worry about him. In any case, the “NYT” did everything to discredit the general.
“Wannabe pop culture fanatic. Zombie advocate. Entrepreneur. Internet evangelist. Alcohol fanatic. Typical travel buff.”