This is an archive of past discussions about Wagner Group rebellion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Write: "Some Russian and Western observers[who?] believe that the organization does not actually exist as a private military company but is in reality a disguised branch of the Russian MoD that ultimately reports to the Russian government.[5][6][7][8] The company shares bases with the Russian military,[9] is transported by Russian military aircraft,[10][11][12] and uses Russia's military health care services.[13][14][15] The Russian state is also documented supporting the Wagner Group with passports.[15][16]" Parham wiki (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Should DNR and LNR be in the "Domestic" response section? Eventually the section may be made into its own article if it grows too large. WMrapids (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I saw a statement from Russian-installed Crimean leader supporting Putin but I couldn't recall the url and I'm trying to find a decent article that is not a live blog. Borgenland (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
"The office of Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko just announced that Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin accepted a proposal to “stop the movement of armed persons of the Wagner company on the territory of Russia and take further steps to de-escalate tensions,” the president’s office said, with similar reporting in Russian news outlets.
The statement said that Vladimir Putin briefed Lukashenko in the morning and, with his approval, Lukashenko held negotiating talks with Prigozhin.
“Negotiations continued throughout the day. As a result, they came to agreements on the inadmissibility of unleashing a bloody massacre on the territory of Russia,” the statement read.
Wagner nor Prigozhin has not commented on the negotiations."
Rebellion still ongoing, article should not be in past tense.
For all we know, while Wagner forces are turning back, there is still an active rebellion going on. One of the largest cities in Russia, Rostov, is currently occupied by a force defying authority from the central government. Until further information is given, this is still ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Yep. I don't mean to speculate, but as an example the occupied regions of Russia may be held hostage in some way by the Wagner Group in exchange for demands. Whatever the case, it is clear that while an attack on Moscow has been averted, the rebellion is still going on. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You said it better than I could. I agree in full. The rebellion ending is not verified, per, again, NYT, on the front page: "Yevgeny Prigozhin said his forces were turning around after they were believed to be on their way to Moscow. His claim could not yet be verified." — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤)18:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the source for this map? It seems like a rough edit from a youtube mapping channel. I don't think we should use it until we have more defnitive information about who controls what Genabab (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
We know that Wagner control Rostov & Voronezh as well as the fact that they are moving along the M-4 highway. @Noorullah21's map is probably the most accurate one we'll get. IX1922 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I have also been seeing reports of them controlling small settlements in the regions such a Millerovo on my Twitter feed. It's unclear where they hold, but its obviously not limited just to the roads. A dashed line of the oblasts could be used to indicated disputed control. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized I was also planning this, another key could be added for regions where control is unclear, possibly a grey-ish colour, maybe white, or something of the sort. Noorullah (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
You need to change it so it reflects whichever highway they are using, they obviously do not 'own' the large swaths of land you have painted in the map and this will confuse people Tweedle (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Unconfirmed. Wagner has been painting red Zs[1] on their vehicles, so it isn't clear if that video is of the Wagner Group or The Russian Ministry of Defense.
Are we good to just remove the current one as of now? This is giving me flashbacks to the awful Telegram maps when the invasion began back in February.
None of the current land which is 'claimed' they obviously own, there are like 5 columns travelling up a highway to Moscow this is not some sort of large scale military revolt that's sweeped across Russia that the map is implying to the average reader (intended or not) Tweedle (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, map is not needed here. They have taken control of Rostov-on-Don and Voronezh and are heading up the M4 highway. They are not capturing swaths of land. Mellk (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
We formerly use File:Wagner Revolt map.svg in the infobox, then a user changed the image to a new color scheme (blue and red) for better accessiblilty. However the map was lately changed to File:Wagner Group Mutiny.svg that use the old color scheme (blue and green), which made the previous work useless. I think we need a clear consensus on which map to use. BlackShadowG (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
What map is being used?
There are currently 1... 2... 3... 9 maps on Wikimedia Commons for the Wagner mutiny already, most just rough duplicates of one another. Only a single map is needed- which one should it be, and how should it be made? I was thinking it should be made in the style of the map for the Belgorod incursions and the invasion of Ukraine as a whole, rather than something out of a "2023 Wagner Rebellion- Every Day" youtube video Presidentofyes12 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The two of the current maps which were on rotation should not be used anyway, the first one being of which like you said looks like out of a shoddy YouTube video and the second showing large swaths of land claimed looks like a poor Telegram esque map used back at the start of the invasion (even though they control none of that and are just travelling up a highway to Moscow). However I myself I am not the person to make this. Somebody more specialised should show at-least the highway they are going travelling along, there was a better map which was a .png a little while up by @CactusCartocratushere. It does not have any sources attached however but maybe something like that can be reworked? Tweedle (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that one is definitely nice, better than any other one used. But if possible I think it should be derived directly from Russia's locator map, as other war maps have been, rather than just being a PNG file with Wagner control drawn over. But such a map would take time and I don't know how to make them so CactusCartocratus' map could be used until then Presidentofyes12 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)it'd be preferable for a map to be derived out of this base map
Ok the very nice map has now appeared with the cities and roads and colors like in other war maps, so I think we should start using it.
Just 2 problems with it I see - it should show the disputed territories like the blank above it, and also Taganrog is not shown and it should be under govt control as the Kadyrovites are approaching from there. CactusCartocratus (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
One problem I see with this map is bad contrast between Wagner controlled territory (grey) and surrounding countries (also grey). Maybe the color of the Wagner area should be changed to make it easier to see?
There's an issue with the recently deployed map; Wagner is shown in a dark dull color, on a map so big, you can barely see their advances. We should probably do some cropping or something to remedy this. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 14:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Well we can just crop it in the page itself like the maps of the Ukrainian counteroffensive are just the main map cropped to a specific area but still the same file.
Please, add hyperlink on Unit 684. This Korean penalty squad similar on part Wagner Group, which detachment on prisoners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.90.100.107 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
In the section Rise in influence write: "Some Russian and Western observers[who?] believe that the organization does not actually exist as a private military company but is in reality a disguised branch of the Russian MoD that ultimately reports to the Russian government.[1][2][3][4] The company shares bases with the Russian military,[5] is transported by Russian military aircraft,[6][7][8] and uses Russia's military health care services.[9][10][11] The Russian state is also documented supporting the Wagner Group with passports.[11][12]" Parham wiki (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Very recently, another major partisan group in Russia, known as the Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists, or BOAK for short, have made a response to the conflict on their telegram (https://t.me/BO_AK_reborn/2416). Going on to say "Neither the Putin regime nor Prigozhinsky are our friends. In this fight between two cannibals, anarchists should stay on the sidelines - let them bleed each other as much as possible. So they will not be able to interfere with people in the future." Considering they have played an important role in the partisan movement of Russia and the wider Russian Opposition. I feel it vital to add this to the list of responses to the conflict. AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2023 (EST)
Then add them once their claims are covered by a secondary source. Telegram reports from groups themselves mustn't be used. SuperΨDro10:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, if that is the case, then why are the statements by other prominent partisan groups like the Russian Volunteer Corps allowed to stay when their citation is directly from their own telegram as well? Either both responses can stay or neither can until we get better reporting, otherwise, it's just a double standard. AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2023 (EST)
Well in that case, as much as direct citations are frowned upon, considering other partisan factions' telegrams were allowed to be cited yet not BOAK's response, either both responses should be allowed in the Russian opposition section until we get some secondary sources, or both responses should remain off the page for the time being. Since doing otherwise would just be picking and choosing one faction over another. Considering the blatant double standard, I would have added BOAK's response personally just to be consistent, but because of extended-protections, I do not have access to do that. AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2023 (EST)
Update, good to see that other partisan factions are getting proper sources, as for BOAK, I have found a secondary source that directly quotes the response from BOAK in a proper English translation. https://crimethinc.com/2023/06/24/russian-anarchists-on-the-wagner-mutiny-combat-organization-of-anarcho-communists-and-movement-of-irkutsk-anarchists"But one thing is clear. First, the moment of direct armed confrontation is nearer than ever before. Second, neither the Putin regime nor Prigozhinsky are our friends. In this fight between two cannibals, anarchists should stay away—let them bleed each other as much as possible. That way, they won’t be able to disturb people in the future." While I cannot add this citation in the article myself, considering BOAK is a major faction within the Russian opposition, I strongly recommend someone add this to the opposition responses section I mentioned prior. AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2023 (EST)
Alleged threat to make nuclear strike on advancing columns of Wagner Group
I suggest thinking about the inclusion of the following sentence:
"Furthermore, there is reason to believe that during the negotiations Alexander Lukashenko issued a threat to make a strike with a tactical nuclear weapon at advancing columns of the Wagner Group; earlier Yevgeny Prigozhin stated that a possibility of nuclear strike on Russian territory was seriously considered by the top leadership of the Russian Federation.[1]"
Yes, I understand that it seems like original research, but it explains the maneuvers of the Doomsday plane (Russia) that day. Anyway the Prigozhin's statement on the Kremlin thoughts about a nuclear strike on Russian territory in order to beat your own in order to intimidate foreigners is confirmed by the sources, and you can easily find relevant video message of Prigozhin. The remarkable fact is that Prigozhin is strictly opposed to any usage of the nuclear weapon and believe that only conventional weapon is acceptable to usage. I think it can be used in the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The current "reactions" section is a simple list without regard for weight. A common trend around WP:RECENCY is to try to include everything that is being said by anyone about a certain topic. Instead, try to create a WP:PROSE description that summarizes the main points with regard for what ideas are WP:DUE. An encyclopedic summary of the types of reactions is far more valuable than a list of quotes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I noticed there was no logo for storm z i found this logo on the russian article File:Группа "Шторм-Z".jpg I would add it myself but i am not a auto confirmed user AvailableViking (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Silveresc A nasty edit conflict just happened where I think I inadvertently erased a lot of your last few edits while restructuring the Background section. It's a massive section, so it's a bit hard for me to tell what exactly got messed up. What was the key stuff you did? We should try to coordinate on what stuff we want to put in, and where. HappyWith (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I added info about Prigozhin's criticism of Russian oligarchs and elite, which is important since he blamed starting war on personal interests of oligarchs and others in his video. I will see what else is missing in current section and will readd it more shortly.Silveresc (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Nythar I agree with this assessment, considering the fact that Prigozhin managed to gain concessions from the Russian government for his actions, especially also considering that the usual punishment for open rebellion is death, I would hardly consider this a "failure". MandaloretheUnknowing (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The entire article explains why this is a failed rebellion. The Wagner Group leader is about to become a political exile in Belarus and his paramilitary group will be dismantled. Aarfrunzindin (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The entire article doesn't say this was a failed rebellion. You also haven't provided a reliable source. Our assessments of the current situation can't be used in the article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Besides the Daily Mail which doesn't count for Wikipedia's politburo,[2] international relations scholars and geopolitics experts were talking about the Wagner rebellion failure on news channels at the time of my edit. The rebellion leader was forced to go into exile, Wagner battalions will disband and you call it a successful rebellion. We can only see opinions like these here in Wikipedia. Aarfrunzindin (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Silveresc I disagree with your removal of the sentences giving an overview of the "infighting section". Without that, the section just unexpectedly presents the reader with info about Russia's losses without supplying the context. Could you explain your rationale for removing the material? HappyWith (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Attempted mutiny
The term "attempted mutiny" to describe this event is appearing in substandard media sources. I would hope that editors refrain from using this term in this article, as it is nonsense on many levels. Abductive (reasoning)03:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Specific reactions
@SpaceEconomist192 In your revert of my edit removing the unnecessary repetitions of "X establishment Russian politician supported Putin", you say: "the same argument could be applied to Western states" - but that's exactly the point. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument here because we should also remove unnecessary repetition and specifics where they aren't needed when it comes to the Western states. HappyWith (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The source for that claim is a WP:PRIMARY telegram video from Prigozhin himself. I would have waited for secondary media to pick this up and verify it before adding this in, considering that he isn't the most reliable source and that there seems to be a bit of confusion as to what exactly he's saying. HappyWith (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Translation check needed
Is the quote of Prigozhin from his Telegram audio message cited as seen in this diff a true quote of his, and is the translation completely correct?—Alalch E.15:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I tend toward agreeing, in spirit, but in actuality, a correct translation checked by a competent Wikipedia editor, or preferably multiple editors, would make it fine under WP:TRANSCRIPTION. But yeah, still a primary source, would have to attribute and could possibly include in the body, but not in the lead and not in the infobox.—Alalch E.16:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith and Alalch E.: Prigozhin does indeed say it at about 4:30 of the speech: "Среди бойцов ЧВК Вагнер. Несколько человек ранены и двое погибших, которые присоединились к нам. Военнослужащие Минобороны по собственному желанию. " Translated:"Among the fighters of the PMCs Wagner, several people were injured and two military personnel who joined us from the of the Ministry of Defense at their own will were killed." I'm sure other Russian editors can verify this. Ecrusized (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
In fact here is the Latinized version of the quote "Sredi boytsov CHVK Vagner. Neskol'ko chelovek raneny i dvoye pogibshikh, kotoryye prisoyedinilis' k nam. Voyennosluzhashchiye Minoborony po sobstvennomu zhelaniyu"". You can listen at about 4:30 and verify with English translation. So this shouldn't require further fact checking. Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Contributors are turning this wiki into an aggregate news site. (I am sure there is a also page already about the Titan sub accident) 85.230.109.99 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I had already argued that we should include when the Wagner Group captured a Russian colonel who had allegedly ordered attacks against it [3][4]. This had been added but apparently it's been removed. I think it is worth including in the Wagner-MoD feud subsection. SuperΨDro10:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Hello. I dispute your removal of the mention of the Venevitin incident, which you have made in this edit, and have restored the content. This is a notable incident, and is useful as an example of what the tension was like. Do you have an objection?—Alalch E.12:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
You’re right tbh, my only complaint is that it’s not really well-integrated into the previous sentence which mentions the 5 June attack - it almost seems like the passage is saying they were two separate attacks on the same day. HappyWith (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Note 2
The second note is currently messy. While sources say six helicopters, among those six helicopters listed one is Il-22 which is not a helicopter - thus making 5 helicopters rather than 6. Brandmeistertalk15:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The note doesn't list Il-22 among the helicopters. The note mentions the following helicopters: 3x Mi-8MTPR-1, 1x Mi-35 Hind, 1x Ka-52, 1x Mi-8 transport. That's six helicopters.—Alalch E.16:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, the Wagner group is part of the Russian government. I sent a dozen links, but you didn't care. Second, you should write in the consequences section that China and North Korea want to prevent such an event from happening again.
A lot of the conflict here seems to be specifically that Wagner isn't part of the chain-of-command for Russian regulars. They had no superiors and didn't answer to anybody in any official capacity. GMGtalk14:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
« In this LPR and RPR there were the Army Corps, which, in case of attack by Ukrainians, were meant to give a response. However, these [Army Corps] didn't exist. In reality, there was a minimal number of solidiers, and a certain number of generals were simply stealing the money. Wikth a salary of 40k, 20k would stay at the [commander], 20k would be given to the soldiers who signed the contract, there was no training, while the generals were simply getting money for these dead soul and the budget were stolen. »
This is quite meaningful, confirming earlier foreign analysis of systemic corruptions, overestimate and lack of human resources and materials.[2][3] I looked for English language journalistic source citing this Prigozhin statement but found nothing online. Can I cite the videos via the tweet ? How should I proceed ? Yug(talk) 🐲 17:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I recommend waiting. We don't need to cover everything the second it happens, and I bet some reliable Russian-language source like Meduza will pick it up sooner or later. HappyWith (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
i want to add the fact that the Storm Z units And the 217th Guards Airborne Regiment joined wagner in the rebellion סתםשםמשתמש (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized: Sorry, but I had to revert you again (diff) because I believe that the claim about the defectors is quite exceptional, and that a better source is needed. The source you used does not look like a serious publication. —Alalch E.18:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that the operators of that website actually talked to a US official. I think that it is fake news (disputed source). Edit: I don't have time to carefully read the U.S. News article right now, will be back later, but I don't see a claim about the defectors in the body of the article, only in the subtitle, which is not a reliable source.—Alalch E.19:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I understand now that the source is reasonably reliable, and I no longer think that claim about the defectors could be fake news. However, there isn't a claim in the source that the defectors were operationally engaged in the hostilities, so I don't think that they should be included in the infobox.—Alalch E.19:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I support this stance. They were not supported by defectors, because they did not participate in the rebellion in any way. SuperΨDro19:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Alalch E.: It should be noted that if the government does not have full control of its armed forces than its not really the government anymore but a split government (hence "loyalists"). Calling Putinists, "Russian Government" during the rebellion is misleading and gives the impression that Armed Forces were entirely loyal to him, they were not. Ecrusized (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that it's up to us Wikipedia editors to litigate who is and who isn't a part of the legal Russian government. We don't call the Russian government "Putinists". There is no basis in the sources, that I am aware of, to say that the government is split into multiple factions in the sense that each faction claims legality.—Alalch E.20:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Alalch E. I disagree with this edit renaming the peace agreement section and subordinating it to the "rebellion" header. I think it makes more sense to have it on its own, since it covers so many events after the end of the fighting - eg. the aftermath - like the details of the deal, Wagner's withdrawal, and what exactly will happen to Prigozhin after we get that info.
I also don't really think we should have "Alexander Lukashenko" in the name of the section - I highly doubt that borderline Russian puppet was as important in the negotiations as Russian media claims, and it's not like we put the name of the peace negotiator in every section about a peace deal in articles about wars. HappyWith (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I somewhat agree, and I'll partially self-revert. I don't think that that content should be under the heading of "Aftermath". Aftermath is what comes after. And this is the very end, but it's still an integral part of the event. The "after" comes after the end.—Alalch E.21:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I think as more info comes out, it probably will cover the aftermath - like what exactly is going to happen to Prigozhin and Wagner - but we can change the name then, I guess. I'd also rather have the section title be "peace settlement" rather than "brokered settlement", which doesn't really make sense. HappyWith (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
"Automatic gunfire and several explosions were heard later in the day in Rostov-on-Don, as Wagner sought to dig in by laying mines and establishing checkpoints in the city centre." HappyWith (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ecrusized The source that’s used to support the claim that there were 25,000 Wagnerites fighting against the government doesn’t say that, it only says that there are 25,000 Wagnerites in the area of Russia. Prigozhin actually does claim it was 25K [6] who took part in the “march”, but that’s just his claims. Other sources say that it seems like not all of the Wagner Group participated in the rebellion, and in fact, the ISW said that reportedly there were at most 4,000 Wagnerites involved in the push towards Moscow. https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-24-2023 The sources are just milbloggers, but there were a lot of them saying this, and the number is an order of magnitude away from what the article currently claims. I think we should include both claims by giving a range until better info comes out. HappyWith (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: I also saw the 4,000 range mentioned on Twitter but others have pointed out that was the number marching on Moscow while Wagner left considerable forces protecting Rostov and Voronezh to avoid them falling to Russian government so 25,000 is the true number. Ecrusized (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Wagner is approximately 25k strong in total after Bakhmut losses and it's inconceivable that every member of Wagner responded to Prigozhin's call to rebellion, and we have a source that says that many didn't know what to do. (source)—Alalch E.20:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The source linked in article says Wagner had 25k in Ukraine and another 25k in Russia. While ISW says 4,000 marched to Moscow, obviously some were left to protect Rostov and Voronezh so why should we include the bare minimum figure? 25k seems more accurate. This source says Wagner has 60k fighters. Ecrusized (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that any assessment of Wagner being 50-60k strong dates back to the period before the Bakhmut losses, and citing such assessments at this time is probably citing outdated information.—Alalch E.21:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, there are probably many Wagnerites still in Africa. It's not like those wars stopped to let Wagner focus solely on Ukraine. HappyWith (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
There's no perfect solution here, but I think including the bare minimum figure is better than no minimum at all, since Prigozhin's figure is also annoyingly unreliable. I'm sure better info will come out later, and we can avoid this balancing of bad sources against one another. HappyWith (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, the more I've thought about it, the more I agree. There's no clean way to include the 4,000 figure in the infobox without misleading the reader about what's actually being claimed. HappyWith (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Would it be possible to set the number as "unknown" for now, with the claimed 25k only in brackets with a disclaimer? The source, which is a translation of one of Prigozhin's audio recordings from his Telegram channel, says: "We’re 25,000 strong, and we’re going to get to the bottom of the lawlessness in this country. 25,000 are waiting as a tactical reserve, while the strategic reserve is the entire army and the entire country." This is such obvious hyperbole, surely it can't be taken as reliable enough for the infobox? — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Also, here's the only Russian source that I found that discusses the potential number of Wagnerites: Meduza.io. In short, there is no conclusive data, and they only mention a "core" of Wagner made up of around 5-6k soldiers, suggesting that as a minimum number upon which Prigozhin typically relied. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
It might be better just to place "Unknown" rather than a number which is likely a quarter of the actual number. Otherwise it asserts something that is blatantly false to the readers. Ecrusized (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As I said earlier, it was just a matter of time until better data came out. This seems to be essentially resolved HappyWith (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@RealHavaspierre, while Wagner has backed down from attacking Moscow, they are still holding many Russian cities, like Rostov.
I don't mean to speculate, but this is just an example of what the situation could be: The march on Moscow may have been to pressurize the government to respond, and now they may be trying to use the occupied territories almost as hostage to gain concessions from the Russian government.
Now, this is just one scenario, and I am in no way saying this will happen or that I think this will happen, the point is that this is a possibility, and an example of why we shouldn't be too hasty to say "it's over". There are still many questions that need to be answered. Until we get further information, it's best to keep it as ongoing while large parts of Russia remain occupied by a force actively defying the central government. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
"Many Russian cities"? "Large parts of Russia"? Russia is the largest country in the world. Not only it's false what I am reading here, it's original research too. emijrp (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Rostov is a city of 1.1 million people. Voronezh is a city of 1 million. 2 and a half to 3 million people under a rebelling army is what I would consider "large". PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Where it says how long the rebellion has gone for, it is still going, so if math serves me right that’s 5 days (23 -> 27) 49.193.32.23 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think part of the reason why the chronology of the article is such a mess is that these sources don't give timestamps to the events they cover, so we're essentially forced to guess randomly as to when things happened. It would help organization if we can find sources that delineate a better timeline. The ISW assessments do this pretty well, for instance. HappyWith (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be tagged? We don't know where Prigozhin is going to end up or how/whether his troops will be dealt with. There are still rumors circulating, many here on this page. I think this should be tagged as an ongoing event. Dcs002 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
My point is that there are major unresolved components of this story. It is not done unfolding. I named a few of the issues that have not been resolved yet (where Prigozhin is going to end up or how/whether his troops will be dealt with). The existence of rumors is just an indicator that it's not settled yet, albeit not a great indicator, but it's also a warning that the article may be subject to questionable edits if the rumors are circulating among editors. I would never suggest adding rumors to the story. It's just a metric of how unsettled the story is. It's still on the news every day. It's still ongoing. Dcs002 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If Prigozhin is still alive and in Belarus, what is he currently up to now? Could all this be a ploy for the Wagner Group to invade Ukraine from the north?
This is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article. It's a place to discuss the article itself, and there is no room in the article for such speculation. And please sign your posts with four tildas "~". Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2023
@Jay Hodec I agree that the “bombing Voronezh” thing should be in the article, but probably not in the main Rebellion section. I think it could maybe go in the Reactions section under a new subsection titled something along the lines of "General Russian public" - which could potentially contain a bunch of other stuff I’ve seen in sources - but I don’t know if the FT article actually talks about the Russian public bringing up the phrase in relation to this event, since I don’t have access to the full article. HappyWith (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: As I've said - it's a bit frivolous, but it works and I feel like I've come across far more egregious examples of such light-hearted digressions in wiki articles. If you stick it wherever else, you'll also need to explain the context again. Here, it fits with the narrative (maybe sticking it in brackets would be an even better solution).
BTW the FT piece puts it this way: "Russians could not believe the scenes: “bombing Voronezh” is a popular meme, a byword for Russia shooting itself in the foot. Now, the meme had become a reality."
And a more daring, mischievous and just generally cooler person than me would suggest you consider the use paywall-defeating add-ons :)
I got some better sources that more explicitly explain that it was memed about by Russians and put it into the "Reactions" section with a bit of context. HappyWith (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed." -Miriam Webster dictionary
That's exactly what happened here, it isn't really a rebellion because there wasn't any sustained fighting besides a few helicopters being shot out of the air. Scu ba (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Scu ba (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
They're both loan words in English, but I think we generally prefer the French "coup d'état" over the German "putsch". A putsch is usually associated specifically with German speaking peoples and their history, while the French "coup" has been adopted in a very broad sense. GMGtalk14:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think "putsch" is a niche enough word that it would need to be the WP:COMMONNAME here for us to name the article that. Like GMG says, it's usually used for events involving German-speaking peoples. HappyWith (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
"Prelude"
The "prelude" section is pretty messy, jumping back and forth chronologically seemingly at random. I think we should maybe combine it and "Prigozhin's announcement" together, and maybe consider putting some of the content about the US predicting the rebellion into "Background" next to Girkin's similar accusations. I don't wanna do anything myself, since I think this would be very easy to mess up even more than how it already is, and I want to get thoughts from other editors. HappyWith (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The "Prelude" and "Background" sections are both chronologically messy, redundant and full of unneeded detail and fluffed up sentences ("after days of refining intelligence" and stuff like that). This article needs a lot of fat trimmed, but right now everyone is focusing on adding stuff and whatever their favorite politician tweeted about it and so on. That'll die down in a few weeks and more reliable sources will turn up, I'm optimistic it will become a decent article in due time. Phiarc (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
HappyWith Hi. I added the Prelude section and most of its content. The goal was to present internal developments in Wagner & gov't leading up to the overt crisis. The key points that I wanted to present are: the rebellion was in the making for at least a week or so, judging by high-confidence U.S. intelligence findings (this contradicts Prigozhin's claim that it was a spur of the moment thing); the Kremlin was caught unaware; not all Wagner commanders were informed about the rebellion.
I don't have a problem with folding the section (originally a subsection) into another section and scattering/trimming some content. Some detail was added later for additional context, and some detail I thought was relevant (Phiarc the "after days of refining intelligence" for example establishes the timeline - the U.S. seems to have picked up the preparations by Monday at the latest).
I think the content (of what is now only the "Background" section, after my edit) is quite good, personally. The sporadic organizational deficiencies are easy to correct.—Alalch E.18:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Lack of competing viewpoints (NPOV) in "Analysis" section
The reactions and quotes in Analysis seem to give the impression that there is a consensus that the outcome of the rebellion will be detrimental to the Putin regime in the long run. However, I think an argument should also be made that the result could actually result in greater consolidation of power in Putin's hands, given that this "biggest challenge to Vladimir Putin's 23-year long rule" lasted only a day, ending with little bloodshed, the apparent exile of its leader, and Wagner troops in Ukraine coming under the umbrella of the MoD. There are a number of quotes supporting both views in this article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/26/putin-what-comes-next-00103590
"Once the dust settles, however — and it likely will, given that others with arms did not join Prighozin’s rallying call — Putin will probably emerge even stronger in terms of immediate internal threats to his rule." - Erica Frantz
"Setting optics aside, Putin objectively resolved the Wagner and Prigozhin problem by dissolving the former and expelling the latter. The situation would have been far worse if it had culminated in a bloody mess in the outskirts of Moscow. And no, Putin doesn’t need Wagner or Prigozhin. He can manage with his own forces. He’s now certainly convinced of that." - Tatiana Stanovaya
"I do not anticipate any impact on the war. I do not anticipate any weakening of Putin and regime from this event. In fact, his support among the military might increase ... I even suspect that what happened on June 24 may have helped somewhat defuse tensions that had been growing within the Russian body politic." - Nikolai Sokov Corporal (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the section is a bit of a mess. Some content is not notable, and some could be moved to /* Responses */. I suggest that prominent commentators (e.g. Blinken) be moved to /* Responses */, and "takes" from journalists and scholars either be removed or moved to /* Responses */. The section should then be rewritten with explanatory journalism pieces (e.g. NYT[7][8]) and scholarly analyses (e.g. ISW) from notable secondary sources without inline attribution.
As to the "strategic" outcome: from what I've read, the two positions are compatible and in fact interrelated: the rebellion undermined Putin's image, legitimacy and aura of invincibility/inevitability, yet it also likely to result in a purge and consolidation of power for exactly this same reason.
Of course, there are more than two positions: "Putin is weakened", "Putin is strengthened", "not much will change", and so on. So far, all of them are opinions, guesswork, interpretations. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Taganrog under Wagner control
I have not seen any evidence that Wagner ever controlled Taganrog and the surrounding area, and I have seen multiple reports of Russian forces being present and actively managing the area. The only place I have seen show Wagner in Taganrog have been the map on this article and maps that trace the map on this article. Is there something I'm missing or is it an oversight? Yeastie (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
War maps are often largely or entirely unsourced, with a few notable exceptions (recall the Syrian Civil war map, for example). The various maps used in the infobox here are no exception to this rule, though. Phiarc (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
According to several sources I've read, Dmitry Utkin, the Nazi tattoos guy and Wagner co-founder, may have been the one leading the Moscow convoy. The most confident source is Haaretz [9], which says simply "The convoy is led by senior Wagner commander Utkin", but Al Arabiya [10] and Times of India [11] more carefully attribute the statement to an unnamed DPR source, and I suspect Haaretz via Reuters is getting the statement from the same source.
I think we can probably put this into the body of the article in the "Approach to Moscow" section with clear attribution now, but we'll need to wait for more concrete data to put him in the infobox. HappyWith (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I support this. I had read about these rumors but wasn't able to find any reliable sources to add. I looked up for sources on early 25 June, goes to show how rapidly information is appearing. SuperΨDro19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think he should be. I've read reports yesterday saying that Utkin's units were the first to cross the Oka River, south of Moscow. He is also described as the founder of Wagner and its figurehead occasionally. Ecrusized (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Only it wasn't, was it? It was a negotiated settlement.
Additionally, the AFTERMATH section does not take a NPOV. "The rebellion was widely described as the biggest challenge to Vladimir Putin's 23-year long rule" - but only in the Western media, using one US and one UK source. That does not equate to "widely described". 182.239.159.174 (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As always, you will need to be able to WP:CITE WP:RELIABLE sources to support your contention; you have not. You can also drop the personal snide remarks - these do not help support your fragile position. 182.239.159.174 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Ultimately PMC Wagner withdrew and there is a link to the section going into more detail. And there is now an additional source on the "biggest challenge" claim as well. After a very brief search I did find other outlets in different countries covering it such as Asia Times[1] and in my own country.[2] I don't want to go overkill on the citations so do you think we should replace one of them? – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk}15:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Monday Putin speech
On Monday (26 June), Putin has made another speech concerning the rebellion. It was after Yevgeny Prigozhin's message on the same day,[3] although he wasn't mentioned directly.[4] I've garthened a few points of the address from to multiple sources:
The rebellion was "resolutely rejected by society"[5] and the perpretrartors were accused by Putin of wanting "to see Russia choked in bloody strife"[4]/"drowned in a bloody domestic strife"[6] and for making "a colossal threat"[7] that qualifies as "criminal activity"[7][8] to weaken the country[7], with the organisers "[realising] their actions were criminal"[4]
"Steps were taken to avoid a lot of bloodshed"[5][4][3]/"neutralise the threat that had arisen"[8] with Putin promising to bring the organizers "to justice"[4][7] (this last quote is disputed[6])
The event showed that "any blackmail, any attempt to create internal turmoil is doomed to failure"[5][6][3]
"Military personnel, law enforcement officers, special services"[5] were praised for remaining patriotic[4][3] and "faithful to their duty, oath and their people",[5] especially Russian pilots who were shot by Wagner members, saving Russia "from tragic devastating consequences"[5]
Participants of the Wagner Group who "stopped at the last line" instead of "[turning] to fratricidal bloodshed" were thanked,[4][6][7][3][8] and most of them were "patriots",[3][8] with Putin giving an oportunity to the group to "continue your service for Russia by signing a contract with the [Ministry of Defence] [...] or to go back to your family and close ones"[4][7][3][8] (probably important to mention)
Alexander Lukashenko is thanked for resolving the conflict peacefully[4][6][8]
Russian citizens are thanked for their unity,[4][3] "endurance, solidarity and patriotism"[5]
The West[4][3][8] and "neo-Nazis in Kyiv"[8] are accused for wanting Russians to "kill each other"
I'd say these details (all attributed to Putin) should be summarized (or some less relevant remarks removed) in a paragraph at the end of the Putin's address section, although I don't know much about the conflict, so my way of organising this information could be misleading. The section's name could be renamed to "Putin's addresses" or similar. Here are other potential sources (some might be listed as unreliable at WP:RSP). ObserveOwl (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Something about that speech is already included in the Aftermath section. More could be added. The "Putin's address" section is only about his speech during the rebellion.—Alalch E.16:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
^"Could Wagner's mutiny help Ukraine?". RTÉ.ie. Ireland. It marked the biggest challenge yet to Putin's long rule and Russia's most serious security crisis since he came to power in 1999.
I recommend that the international responses be arranged in an alphabetic bullet-point list according to country (wherever possible, with general info in separate paragraph on top), as is common practice with such sections (for example, see: 2022_Kazakh_unrest#By_country) ... I mean, if anyone's got the time. Those little flags would also be nice ...
Sources for aftermath - arrests of Wagner in Syria?
We have Meduza saying that Kommersant said that al-Hadath said that some Wagner officers in Syria have been arrested by regular Russian forces. My friend's cousin's neighbour's hairdresser's customer's sister who lives somewhere in the world confirmed the arrests from an overheard conversation about something that was written on the Internet, but it would still be better to wait to see if we have some sources that are more direct. Any real sources? Boud (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
A tweet by al-Hadath provides a 30 second snippet of the original source. (I have no idea if the original source is longer, and I don't speak Arabic.) But both Kommersant and Meduza have since updated their reports: Wagner-affiliated Telegram channels have denied that any of their commanders were detained in Syria. I'd say until more reliable information becomes available, we can ignore this. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2023
In regards to potential and relevant additions, I believe there is a fairly sizable number of Belarusian Opposition groups that have responded to the Wagnar revolts, yet have not been taken note of on this page, in spite of them having serious relevance for Belarus and by extent, Russia. For one instance, we can cite the Belarusian Opposition and anarchist group Autonomous Action, as cited here: https://crimethinc.com/2023/06/24/russian-anarchists-on-the-wagner-mutiny-combat-organization-of-anarcho-communists-and-movement-of-irkutsk-anarchists going on to say "Prigozhin is no better than Putin: now some fascists are fighting against others. Any authoritarian power eventually gives rise to bloody conflicts (...) there is no “our side” in the clash between the “Wagnerites” and the “official” state structures. In the ongoing squabble, all of them pursue only their own interests and will only defend themselves. It is better for all other people not to risk themselves in someone else’s struggle and, if possible, stay away from collision points." I also think there are also a few other major Belarusian opposition groups that have made responses too but I do not have citations for them as of now, so others input is welcome. AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2023 (EST)
That is great to hear, Thank you. If I were to make one small change in my personal opinion, it would be to make the small addition that "BOAK/COAK" also called for Russian people to "arm themselves" as well for a potential future uprising. As for other notable Belarusian Opposition groups perspectives, I remember a few other partisan groups making statements that I think are also worthy of addition, so I will likely update this with further citations if/when I find them. AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2023 (EST)
Done. Couldn't find a quote that said exactly what you're describing, but I added the part where they said to prepare for armed conflict. HappyWith (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Defectors in combatants in the Infobox
@Ecrusized: You say this matter was discussed on the talk page, but I can't find any evidence of such a consensus here. In fact, you were told in the "Defectors" section above that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Apologies if I missed it, but can you point to where you say such a consensus exists?
Anyway, I disagree regardless. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is quite direct (even if ignored by well-meaning editors):
keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose
An Infobox is not a complete summary of everything that happened. It is the key facts, the very most important stuff. The source on the two defectors seems sketchy still, but even if it's true... who cares? Two guys is nothing. It was not the core of the force that took over Rostov and marched north. Two unorganized soldiers out of many simply isn't important enough to include. If any organizations supported Wagner, feel free to mention them, but it's assumed that in any large-scale event, there will be random people helping out on both sides, in the same way there surely there were some random Wagner people who helped the Ministry of Defence side. (And yes, I'd potentially be willing to remove some of the entries on the government side of the belligerents as well, and in fact already did earlier. I'd be totally fine with reducing it to, like, two pro-government factions.) SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@SnowFire: It's here Talk:Wagner Group rebellion#Defectors. Your argument about "who cares?" is not appropriate, Wagner says only two of their participants killed were defectors. Also reliable sources quoting senior U.S. officials says there was a significant number of defectors. You have opened a discussion, opposing an established consensus and reverted before any one even responded. So I'm reverting back to the established version until anyone else support your argument. Ecrusized (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
To summarize, I agree with your points on infobox purpose, two things here make it fit the criteria 1) US officials says there was a significant number of defectors. 2) Only combatant deaths among the Wagner side was defectors, so perhaps their number is equal to that of Wagnerites. Not including such a major faction in the infobox would mislead the readers. Ecrusized (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
On a procedural note: No, the established version does not include this from a day or two ago, you've just aggressively edit warred it in against those who disagree. It seems like it's just you who insists on including this, not really a consensus. You are citing a discussion with one editor that is talking about the veracity of the reports, not a "consensus" involving multiple people on the topic of the Infobox specifically. I read the "Defectors" section on this talk page and no such consensus emerged there - just the agreement that the defectors are probably real. That is the floor for including it in the infobox, that the report is true, but not nearly sufficient. Again, the Infobox is not for every single true fact. You'll note that I didn't remove your addition in the prose talking about the two defectors' death, just the Infobox.
If you want to prove that significant numbers explicitly joined the rebellion rather than merely stuck their hands in their pockets, we need much, much, much better sources than just the rotting corpse of US News & World Report (which is not particularly reliable anymore). If there's an article in the NYT or WaPo or BBC saying this, I'll happily put them back in the infobox myself. But it needs to be significant, explicit aid. SnowFire (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
You are accusing me of being the only user opposing this however user Alalch E. has also supported it in the discussion. Meanwhile I don't even know why you opened this discussion if you planned on violating WP:3RR as you just did in the first place. I suggest you self revert and wait for more input in this discussion otherwise you are edit warring and already crossed 3RR, I will file a complaint.Ecrusized (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Ecrusized, I think you misread the discussion above. Alaich E. says "I don't think that they should be included in the infobox". Super Dro, replying to this, says "I support this stance." (i.e. the stance of not including it in the Infobox). This is part of why I've been a bit more insistent than usual - claiming "consensus" is on your side when this isn't actually true is something that is quite annoying. Anyway, pinging @Alalch E. and Super Dromaeosaurus: just in case I'm the one who misread this, if you have any further thoughts on the specific issue of inclusion in the Infobox. SnowFire (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, my comment meant that I supported not including that info in the infobox. But I've changed my mind now, as it appears defectors indeed fought for Prigozhin and even died for his rebellion [12]. So to let it clear, now I support including defectors in the infobox. Maybe we could then add a note to specify what units did these soldiers come from. SuperΨDro19:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd really prefer better sourcing than the Novayagazeta article though, given that the BBC source seems to say the reverse that the defectors were not significant. Even if some of them died, they might still have been fairly irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. SnowFire (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean. The article is written by Prigozhin. It can't get more reliable than that. At least in details like these in which he wouldn't get anything by lying. It's also expected that the BBC said that as their article was previous to Prigozhin's declarations. SuperΨDro22:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No, Prigozhin isn't a reliable source, neither in this regard nor any other. He expected Russian soldiers to join his rebellion. They mostly didn't. Of course he'd lie about it and exaggerate the support he got. It makes him look stronger and more "one with the people". — Chrisahn (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin likely gambled on securing defections in the Russian military, but overestimated his own prospects, The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) says.
This is explicitly saying that the defections were not significant (and not a "major faction" as you put it), from the BBC. SnowFire (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please self revert before we continue this discussion? Yes, I did read those reports as well, however I believe they are referring to high ranking officials rather than soldiers. In other articles by RS, it is stated that Prigozhin counted on senior government officials and politicians defecting to his side, which did not happen. Unrelated to military officers defecting. Ecrusized (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
No, I won't, because if two editors sharply disagree on some content, by default that content is not included (see WP:BURDEN, for what to do with material whose sourcing isn't strong enough to back it). For the record, if I had been the one trying to include something and someone else strongly disagreed, I would have stood down and waited for a third opinion to come along before trying to restore it. Anyway, I pinged some of the previous editors in the discussion above. And if you actually have a better source that shows the defectors were, to use your words, a major faction, then I'm already willing to back down. Just we need that source first (i.e. something stronger than the current sources, which seem to only indicate there were a few defectors and two of them died - anonymous alleged US officials don't count). SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping SnowFire, and for pointing out that I did not agree with retaining the claim about the defectors in the infobox, and that there was not such a consenus. Currently, in the body, there is a claim by an unnamed US DoD official, and such a claim is not generally present in other sources, about large numbers of defectors. But there is not a claim that an appreciable number of defectors were advancing towards Moscow or being active in takeovers of buildings etc.I don't think that Prigozhin is lying when he says that two defectors were killed, but he is still a primary source which makes me hesistant about putting anything about defectors in the infobox, as I don't think that the infobox is the right place for borderline content, but should succintly represent the best-sourced information in the article. The fact that two defectors were killed, even if it could be properly verified, could still mean that it was two guys picked up along the way; I mean, we just don't know.I suggest waiting and thinking more about this before including defectors as combatants in the infobox; I'm not a fan of including them as casualties either, but I won't insist on removal of that point. I am skeptical that there were many defectors, and it's possible that the DoD source interpreted passive and nominal support, whereby those who would oppose Wagner, simply stood aside to let Wagner do their thing, as real defection, i.e. real change in loyalty. To illustrate, another Novaya Gazeta article says that "Russian security officers had zero desire to fight Wagner mercenaries", but as far as I can see it doesn't talk about defectors, and if it had such information it would report on it in it's own voice. I would like to see a credible report that an appreciable numbers of defectors were meaningfully participating in Wagner activities on the ground.—Alalch E.23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the defectors belong in the infobox, without them Prigozhin wouldn't have come as far as he did. and we don't have the problem with overloading the infobox in this case. but i'm against naming distinct brigades that partially defected, that would be overloading imo Norschweden (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
"without them Prigozhin wouldn't have come as far as he did." [citation needed] ;-) Seriously: That's WP:OR or at best WP:SYNTH, isn't it? – So far, I think the claim that defectors played a significant role (or any role at all, really) is not well sourced. We shouldn't add defectors to the infobox. — Chrisahn (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not a high quality source. 1. It's an opinion piece. Fact checking by editors is generally less stringent on opinion pieces than on factual reports. 2. The text contains glaring factual errors. In the next sentence, the author claims "Wagner forces destroyed nearly two dozen Russian aircraft", which is three times higher than what almost all other sources say. 3. The author doesn't cite any sources for his claim. 4. The author doesn't say how many allegedly defected. Five? Five hundred? – I don't think we should use this source. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@SnowFire, Alalch E., Super Dromaeosaurus, and Chrisahn: New information surfacing regarding defections by high ranking Russian officials. According to NYT "Sergey Surovikin had advance knowledge of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s plans to rebel against Russia’s military leadership, according to U.S. officials briefed on American intelligence on the matter,"[2]"Surovikin, Alekseyev... and other Russian generals may also have supported Prigozhin’s attempt to change the leadership of the Defense Ministry by force." Another quote: "Senior American officials suggest that an alliance between General Surovikin and Mr. Prigozhin could explain why Mr. Prigozhin is still alive, despite seizing a major Russian military hub and ordering an armed march on Moscow."Ecrusized (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, interesting report. But it doesn't say anyone in the Russian military directly supported the rebellion or even defected, just that some may have known about Prigozhin's plans. And the sources "emphasized that much of what the United States and its allies know is preliminary". In summary: Interesting new angle, but so far the information is too vague to be usable for us in any way, and it has little to no relevance for the question whether there were defectors. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Chrisahn: Another report, this time by WSJ says: "The ease with which Wagner’s troops took (Rostov) that is home to a large military airport suggests that some regular forces commanders could have been part of the plot, according to Western intelligence."[3]Ecrusized (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure that's true, and am a lot less skeptical than Chrisahn in general on the topic. I am, however, pretty strict on Infobox belligerents: no support, no covert, just explicitly on a side. While the rebellion undoubtedly got as far as it did with the acquiesce of key parts of the Russian military, as stated before, the belligerents should in general only be for sides that explicitly threw their hat in the ring. I was about to suggest that, say, the 1953 Iranian coup'detat would be a good example of how US acquiescence was very relevant but not technically a belligerent worthy of the infobox, but see that someone threw that in there anyway. Sigh. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
"While the rebellion undoubtedly got as far as it did with the acquiesce of key parts of the Russian military" – I'm not sure what you mean by "acquiesce", but there's no reason to assume that the lack of opposition to Wagner in Rostov and on the highway proves that parts of the Russian military wanted to let Prigozhin go ahead, or anything like that. There simply wasn't anyone there who would have had a chance against several thousand well-equipped fighters (who obviously had pretty good air defense systems). For example, ISW says: "Prigozhin’s rebellion has illustrated that Russian forces lack reserves in many rear areas ... Wagner’s drive also showcased the degradation of Russia’s military reserves, which are almost entirely committed to fighting in Ukraine". [13] But maybe I misunderstood what you meant... — Chrisahn (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Similar quote from 25 June assessment: "ISW previously assessed that Prigozhin likely sought and failed to win military support for his rebellion, and Wagner’s move on Moscow was likely predicated on the assumption that military support would strengthen the rebellion’s forces and capabilities. Prigozhin may have become more amenable to the alleged negotiations with Lukashenko as these insufficient forces drew nearer to Moscow and that time was running out to garner the necessary military support for a potential armed conflict with the MoD." [15] — Chrisahn (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
FSB raid on Wagner headquarters, threats to relatives of Wagnerite convict soldiers, etc
This stuff is covered in the article under the subsection "advance towards Moscow", but I don't think it really belongs there. It's not part of Wagner's campaign, and isn't even really part of the military rebellion - more like a legal response and crackdown on the group. I feel like it could be organized into its own little subtopic in the article, but I don't know how or where. If other editors have ideas, let me know. HappyWith (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
HappyWith I think the whole section should just be spun off into a /* Countermeasures */ subsection.
The section has now been created. Could do with some more summarizing and bigger picture stuff for readability, but I think it works okay for now otherwise. HappyWith (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Typo
It says "At least thirteen servicemen of the Russian military were killed during the rebellion.[5] On Wagner's side, 30 members of the Wagner group and two Russian military defectors were reported killed by Prigozhin."
Do you mean according to prigozhim? THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you might be misunderstanding them here. They probably want to replace the wording "reported killed by Prigozhin" to "killed according to Prigozhin". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
In the infobox, the number has been changed to 32, but the source cited says only 2 defectors were killed. I assume this is combining that number with the number who supposedly died in the MoD strike on a Wagner base? Problem is, that was (arguably) before the rebellion began, and we really shouldn’t take it at face value. A lot of sources are beginning to say the so-called MoD strike on Wagner was staged. I think we should go back to the old numbers which don’t have as much uncertainty to them. HappyWith (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, this probably comes down to one or two editors misunderstanding the source. The "30" is from before the rebellion began. —Alalch E.14:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, right, sorry, this was me, my bad. I was checking his rambling statement and he connected the 30 dead with helicopter strikes ("Despite the fact that we had not shown any aggression") - I never saw him claim that the strike that ostensibly caused the rebellion was conducted with choppers. I now see that the chronology makes it clear this was before the rebellion was launched.
According to Business Insider, ten servicemen on board the Il-22 aircraft were killed.[1] This indicates that, unless the remaining six helicopters were unmanned, there would be a minimum of 16 Russian servicemen killed. However, considering the requirements stated on their respective pages, a minimum of two pilots are needed to operate the downed Russian helicopters. Which means the total number of Russian servicemen killed would be at least 22. Perhaps this should be added with an inline note to provide an explanation for this calculation. Ecrusized (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
That’s original research, unfortunately. What if the pilots ejected from some of the vehicles before crashing? We don’t know what exactly went down.
I also think the shootdowns of helicopters are actually unconfirmed, despite what this wiki article says (you’ll note that a lot to the sources cited to support the claim use language like “may have shot down…”) so that’s why sources aren’t saying that themselves. Let’s wait to see what the sources unambiguously say. I’m sure the obituaries will get compiled by some Russian source eventually to give us a concrete number. HappyWith (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now please provide verbatim requested changes. Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done: WP:WEIGHT. Izno (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
.svg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Izno (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Done for the international reactions section. — Ætoms [talk] 21:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done WP:RS--IanDBeacon (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
