Exactly two months after Prigozhin’s “march of justice”, which also has been called a mutiny or a coup, the main man behind it all – Yevgeniy Prigizhin – was reported to be onboard a plane that crashed in the Tverskaya oblast’, north-west of Moscow on its way to St. Petersburg. The reports coming from Russia regarding the death of Prigozhin have caused a huge rise of various conspiracy theories about the possible causes of the crash, a possibility that it was not Prigozhin but his double, or that the person on the plane was a decoy and Prigozhin was on a different plane.
On the 27th of August, the Russian Investigative Committee officially confirmed that Yevgeniy Prigozhin was onboard the plane together with another high-ranking Wanger member, Dmitry Utkin, whose military alias was “Wangner”, which later became the name of the company. Thus, two major players in the Wanger-Kremlin standoff were moved off the board in one day.
The reaction to the event from the West has been mostly along the lines that the Kremlin, and particularly, Vladimir Putin, were behind the plane crash. Pieces in the Financial Times and Foreign Affairs have emphasised the humility of the situation for Putin that Prigozhin created when he sent his troops to march to Moscow, no matter the cause. Many other analysts have echoed this stance, expanding on the idea that Putin hated to be seen as not having control over his men and ultimately, as weak. Many news outlets run articles on other assassinations allegedly carried out by the Kremlin, such as the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 and Sergei Skripal in 2018. Some others questioned the reaction of the Moscow elites and the general public to the situation and speculated on the possible political outcomes of the mutiny.
Some commentators have gone as far as arguing that Vladimir Putin could not forgive Prigozhin for his “treason” of the common cause and for betraying Putin personally and that the Kremlin’s “long arms” are capable of reaching the enemies of the state anywhere. This gave a surprising boost to Bill Browder, who has been appearing on TV shows and news programs sharing his experience of being an enemy of Russia (allegedly) and the measures he has taken to throw the Kremlin off his trail. He has been rather vague about what measures exactly he is taking and why but his televised appearances have added to the shared understanding that the Kremlin is behind the plane crush because “everybody knows it was Putin”.
While it is likely that the Kremlin might be behind the plane crash as it would benefit them greatly, this possibility does not legitimise the conspiracy theories that the crash has provoked. Assigning the Kremlin with unchecked and all-reaching power is counterproductive as it is not the case in the real world – the absence of achievements of the “special military operation” in Ukraine speaks to the contrary of the Kremlin having this almost omnipresent power to chase down its opponents. While it is understandably fascinating and tempting to analyse the plane crash within the framework of the cloak and dagger and Moscow rules approach, it is important to remember the power of the shared word, and that overestimating and even hiddenly praising the power of the Kremlin to destroy its opponents can play in favour of the Kremlin’s propaganda. That is why the conspiracy theories not only do not “reveal the truth” about the plane crash as some may argue, but instead might be working towards the desirable image of the all-powerful regime. Even if the Kremlin is not behind the plane crash, at the moment they are reaping the rewards in the form of attention, media presence, and controlling the narrative.
The reaction to Prigozhin’s death in the Russian-speaking sphere has been widely different. The Kremlin has been matter-of-fact about it, with Putin calling Prigozhin a good businessman who made mistakes. However, Putin was successful in staying neutral throughout the short address, thus not giving away any non-verbal information about how he felt about it. Most pro-Kremlin public figures have followed the same approach, for example, Margarita Simonyan had two dry posts, one of which was just “Rosaviation has confirmed it. Prigozhin was onboard” (Telegram, 23.08.2023). Maria Zakharova did not comment on the plane crash on the 23rd of August at all, instead praising the BRICS summit. There is a sense of almost imposed neutrality or refusal to interact with the event, which is surprising as both have been known for not holding back emotional comments and verbal attacks in the past. Many pro-Kremlin and pro-military channels have repeatedly asked not to spread any fake information about Wanger and Prigozhin. Prigozhin’s funeral was kept private, not allowing large gatherings of people. These attempts at information control signal that the Kremlin does not want people to see Prigozhin as a martyr, afraid that it might legitimise his actions against the regime. Instead, Prigozhin’s death is kept out of the spotlight hoping that it will be soon forgotten.
An interesting message was shared by Alexey Navalny on his Instagram account, who contrary to the conspiracy theories floating around criticises the calls to see the Kremlin as strategically thinking. He argues that Putin has no concept of being true to his word, which is believed to have protected Prigozhin up until his mutiny earlier this year. Navalny argues that the need to shoot down Prigozhin’s plane shows that the regime was incapable of a more covert assassination or Prigozhin would have had a less dramatic end. Navalny also alludes to Prigozhin’s death being a catalyst for a civil war in Russia if the people who praise Wagner would feel betrayed and abandoned by the regime. While the Kremlin is trying to mitigate such an outcome by controlling the media, downplaying Prigozhin’s death, and relocating most of the Wagner troops to Africa, there is still a possibility that Prigozhin’s death might turn out to be more than the regime expected it to be.