South Front
Click to see the full-size image
Written by Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant
Three weeks after Evgeny Prigozhin’s “march for justice”, Western media outlets remain unable to explain what really happened on June 24th. American journalists and officials do not seem to understand the causes and consequences of the event, failing to create a coherent, useful narrative.
When Prigozhin announced his mutiny on the night of June 23, the West received the news with a combination of surprise and hope. At first, comments were avoided, as there was no way to correctly assess what was happening in Russia. However, Western enthusiasm at the mere possibility of a scenario of political instability in Moscow was undeniable. This became even clearer throughout the 24th, when various media outlets began to spread fake news that Russia would be entering civil war and that Putin could suffer a coup d’état.
Newspapers that had always called Wagner’s soldiers “terrorists” suddenly began calling them “heroes” and “freedom fighters“. Prigozhin went from being seen as an enemy to being praised by pro-Western propagandists for his alleged intention to “overthrow the Russian government” – something that was never said by Prigozhin himself, who endorsed support for Putin and criticized only the Ministry of Defense during the uprising.
At the same time, in order to take advantage from what was happening and try to portray the American government as “competent”, propagandists launched the narrative that Wagner’s maneuvers were “predicted” by US intelligence. For example, a New York Times’ article from the 24th stated that “U.S. spy agencies had indications days earlier that Mr. Prigozhin was planning something and worked to refine that material into a finished assessment”.
The same narrative was supported by many other top outlets during the following days. Obviously, agencies stopped calling Wagner’s troops “heroes” and resumed the “terrorist” label rapidly, but they did not change the “prediction” tale. For example, CNN published on July 27:
“US intelligence officials were able to gather an extremely detailed and accurate picture of Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s plans leading up to his short-lived rebellion, including where and how Wagner was planning to advance (…) But the intelligence was so closely held that it was shared only with select allies, including senior British officials, and not at the broader NATO level, these sources said”.
The main problem is that in parallel to this speech of CNN and NYT, other important channels linked to the US government started to spread completely different and contradictory stories. The Washington Post, for example, stated that “the exact nature and timing of Prigozhin’s plans were not clear until shortly before his stunning takeover of a military command and tank run toward Moscow on Friday and Saturday”.
This same newspaper, a few days later, interviewed Jamil Jaffer, “a former senior counsel to the House Intelligence Committee and national security official in the George W. Bush White House”, who said: “[June 24 events] were not only unprecedented in modern times, but were also nearly impossible to predict”, absolutely refuting the words of NYT, CNN.
What can be concluded is that mainstream western media is highly confused and does not know which narrative to use in a unified way. Contradictory information has been published simultaneously, making it difficult to believe that there is any cohesion in the American media and propaganda services.
For the Telegram analysis channel “Ukrainian Human Rights Abuses”, these media errors may be related to a despair on the part of Biden’s propaganda as the president worries about next year’s elections. Unpopular and increasingly discredited, Biden would be trying to exploit the Wagner topic in order to gain some improvement in his image by showing the “efficiency” of his intelligence service.
“Biden is worrying about the future presidential elections and he needs to prove that his policies — including the sanctions — are effective. His media technologists are trying to create an image of a well-informed and wise politician who is capable of controlling everything, even the state of things in other countries”, a post of the channel reads.
It is also interesting to note that since then the western media has seemed really desperate to explore this matter and gain attention and credibility as much as possible. Not just the mutiny itself, but everything related to the topic of Wagner has been the target of American propaganda. For example, Retired Gen. Robert Abrams gave an interview on July 11 to ABC News suggesting without any proof that the recent post-unrest friendly meeting between Putin and Prigozhin announced by Russian authorities was a “lie”.
“I’d be surprised if we actually see proof of life that Putin met with Prigozhin, and I think it’s highly staged. And my personal assessment is that I doubt we’ll see Prigozhin ever again publicly. I think he’ll either be put in hiding or sent to prison or dealt with some other way, but I doubt we’ll ever see him again”, he said.
It means that even with the situation resolved and the parties already reconciled, western journalists insist on taking some benefit from the matter. They refuse to admit the obvious fact that they misunderstood the June 24 events and made a mistake by betting on Russian social chaos and calling this “predictable”. The credibility of the western media is more and more affected with each new lie and contradictory information on the Wagner issue.
You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.
