The Triangular Tightrope: Putin, Prigozhin, and Lukashenko

The intricate power dynamics in authoritarian regimes demand a nuanced comprehension of the multifarious relationships and political manoeuvres defining their leadership. A detailed analysis of Russia's recent political scene perfectly illustrates these complexities. It particularly highlights potential shifts threatening President Vladimir Putin's well-established power base, a structure built on loyalty, fear, and fiscal incentives. 

This article in particular hinges on the events of June 24, 2023, when a deliberate move by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a significant figure in Russia's military-industrial complex, revealed a potential rift in the Russian command. Prigozhin's audacious manoeuvres seemed to question Putin's supremacy, sparking queries about his ability to maintain control amid rising disputes within his administration. 

Putin's Russia is well known for its staunch tactics and dissent suppression. Opponents and potential threats are neutralised by legal or other means, with a clear message: loyalty yields rewards, while treachery attracts severe punishment. His inner circle, military, security forces, and wider bureaucracy are driven by prospects of wealth and influence, fostering a kleptocratic system where corruption and favouritism thrive. Public wealth is redirected to those in power, biassing the economy towards the elites, while a large segment of the population remains impoverished. Despite the stark socio-economic disparities this generates, Putin secures the loyalty of his subordinates by ensuring their stake in his regime's survival. 

The anatomy of a power structure

The interplay between Putin's strategies, Prigozhin's ambitions, and Lukashenko's actions paints a complex picture of power dynamics in authoritarian regimes. Claims that Putin's iron grip on power weakened due to the short-lived revolt of the Wagner mercenaries under Prigozhin merit a closer examination of how Putin’s power and relationships are truly calibrated. 

The unfolding chaos was initiated with an alleged assault on a Wagner camp by Russian regular forces. This surprise attack prompted Prigozhin to take control of the Russian armed forces' headquarters in Rostov-on-Don, and set into motion a troop mobilisation towards Moscow. However, these hostile activities were brought to a standstill through subsequent negotiations, which halted the advancement of the Wagner group. 

But the group was neither dissolved nor effectively exiled to Belarus. In reaction to this Wagner incident, Putin employed a strategic purge, disciplining those who either backed Prigozhin or facilitated his actions. Moreover, Russian media initiated a rigorous campaign against Prigozhin. This consisted of broadcasting footage from an FSB raid on his residences, and the portrayal of his business empire's downfall.

Rather impactful factors in this peculiar sequence of events: 

Power Dynamics: Putin and Prigozhin share a complex relationship and a long-time friendship. Prigozhin's capacity to leverage state resources for personal gain mirrors Putin's tactics. However, a pressing challenge for Prigozhin lies in securing sufficient financial backing to sustain the operations of the Wagner group.

Wagner's Role: The Wagner Group, a Private Military Company (PMC) led by Prigozhin, serves as an extension of the Russian state. Despite being heavily state-subsidised, the group has managed to extract mineral resources for its own benefit, hinting at a drive for autonomy.

Information Warfare: After Russia's strategic loss in Ukraine in 2023, Prigozhin capitalised on the nation's propaganda machine and claimed a victory for Wagner in Bakhmut, arguably attempting to take sole ownership in the media limelight. In response, Putin lauded Prigozhin--a tactic that is perceived as a public relations manoeuvre designed to keep Prigozhin within his limits.

Prigozhin's Accusations: Prigozhin's narrative about Putin's war motivations—purportedly resource-driven rather than a response to NATO enlargement or Ukrainian aggression—undermines Putin's credibility. At first glance, Prigozhin's actions and narratives certainly appear as a tangible threat to Putin's regime, underscoring a power struggle and the vulnerability of the Russian state.

Lukashenko-Prigozhin-Putin: The Lukashenko-Prigozhin-Putin triangle forms a complex nexus of power that influences the stability of the region. While certain aspects of their relationship are established, their future dynamics remain uncertain and subject to a multitude of internal and external factors. How each player responds to these pressures could significantly influence their alliances and power dynamics and the uniqueness of each context makes accurate forecasts immensely very difficult.

Yevgeny Prigozhin and Vladimir Putin

From a restaurateur in St. Petersburg to a pivotal figure in Russia's foreign policy, Yevgeny Prigozhin's ascent exemplifies the nuanced power dynamics within Russia, largely facilitated by his intricate association with President Putin. Despite lacking a formal role in Putin's administration, Prigozhin participated in high-stakes defence contract negotiations. His discreet involvement in a 2018 Kremlin meeting between Putin and Madagascar's then President, Hery Rajaonarimampianina, hinted at his growing influence. 

Prigozhin, through his association with the Wagner Group, has emerged as an effective tool for Russia's overseas interference and also places him as a cog in Russia's Ukraine strategy. Prigozhin's influence and control over a formidable military faction, coupled with his populist anti-elite rhetoric echoing that of Alexei Navalny, is met with–at least–scepticism within Russia’s political and military elite. His ascent presents an intriguing examination of the intricate and opportunistic power dynamics within Putin's Russia.

Essentially: Yevgeny Prigozhin, through his control over the Wagner Group, has become an influential figure in Russian foreign policy. His hatred for the elites combined with the ability to leverage state resources and command a formidable military faction positions him as a potential adversary within Putin's power structure.

Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin

The political bond between Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin is a blend of political necessity and mutual advantage. Lukashenko, ruling Belarus for nearly three decades, has relinquished significant autonomy to Russia. Despite this, he managed to preserve enough sovereignty to ensure his rule. Putin's instrumental support for Lukashenko during the 2020 pro-democracy protests in Belarus illustrates the alliance's reciprocal benefits. Belarus's strategic location allowed Russia to stage its invasion of Ukraine in 2021. Lukashenko's unwavering loyalty effectively transformed Belarus into a Russian vassal state, securing political stability and economic aid. 

The crisis involving Prigozhin further elucidates the Lukashenko-Putin alliance. Lukashenko's intervention to broker a deal with Prigozhin highlights his political relevance and utility to both domestic and international players. Belarus's future, under Lukashenko, is inherently linked to Russia and the evolution of the Lukashenko-Putin relationship. 

Essentially: Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin share a political bond that blends political necessity and mutual advantage. Their alliance has weathered various international and domestic challenges. Lukashenko's loyalty to Putin has transformed Belarus into a de facto vassal state of Russia, which has secured political stability and economic aid for Belarus.

Yevgeny Prigozhin and Alexander Lukashenko

Yevgeny Prigozhin has been noticeably absent from public sight since 24 June and Lukashenko decidedly distanced himself from Prigozhin, asserting that neither the Wagner CEO nor his forces are stationed in Belarus, with their future presence in the country remaining uncertain. 

Lukashenko is said to have intervened to resolve Prigozhin’s potential insurrection in Russia last month, a mediation allegedly made possible due to their personal acquaintance and friendship of close to two decades. For context, Prigozhin's persistent clashes with the Russian Defence Ministry culminated when he resisted their insistence that Wagner mercenaries enter contracts with the Russian government; Lukashenko made clear that if Wagner were to operate in Belarus as a consequence of the Putin-Prigozhin fall-out, its mercenaries would need to formalise their presence with the Belarusian government.

A critical concern shaping the relationships between Prigozhin and Lukashenko, as well as between Prigozhin and Putin, is the continued funding of the Wagner Group. That begs the question of whether Lukashenko would actually be willing and capable of picking up the tab for the Wagner troops.

Essentially: The viability of the Wagner Group hangs in the balance. Unless funding from Russia continues or another financier – like Lukashenko – steps in, the survival of Prigozhin's Wagner Group remains unclear. Ultimately, without financial support, their operations are unlikely to advance.

And its fault lines

The crux of this triangular stakeholder map lies in interpreting Putin's response to the Wagner incident, specifically the resulting purge. Does it reveal control at last or indicate serious cracks within his power structure?

Autocratic leaders often resort to purges to sustain their hold on power. However, the necessity for an extensive purge might point to substantial internal dissension. Putin's power structure, encompassing a complex network of security organisations, forms a crucial pillar of his regime. Yet, Prigozhin's brief insubordination suggests that Putin's control may not be absolute.

Further, Putin's broader power structure includes control over the state apparatus, media, economy, and the narrative of Russian imperialism. This comprehensive system, with Putin at its centre, has demonstrated resilience in the face of multiple pressures. However, its reliance on a singular figure may induce potential instability.

The Wagner incident, triggered by Prigozhin, exposed possible fractures in Putin's power structure. Nonetheless, Putin's rapid response to contain the threat also bears witness to adept leadership. The intricate network of control and loyalty forms the backbone of Putin's system, but whether it can withstand future internal or external pressures remains to be seen. This underscores the complexity of autocratic systems and the factors contributing to their longevity or rapid downfall.

One especially volatile stimulus is Putin's self-destructive quest for victory. His determination to reassert Russia's place in the world, notably through the annexation of Crimea and ongoing involvement in Ukraine, has resulted in international sanctions and a shaky economy. These actions, though initially boosting his popularity at home, are beginning to yield diminishing returns as the economic realities bite and the true pillars of his power structure, the self-interest of those involved, and their fealty towards him are increasingly strained. 

External pressures, such as the war in Ukraine, combined with internal dissent from figures like Prigozhin, could precipitate significant shifts in Russia's political landscape. Furthermore, Russia's internal power struggles have often spilt over its borders, impacting neighbouring states and international relations. The Ukraine crisis and Belarus's strategic predicaments are only recent examples. 

Putin's power matrix is thus a complex interplay of aspiration, fear, nationalism, and aggression. Each of these components serves a particular function in maintaining his control. However, this carefully constructed structure is far from invulnerable. The real test of its resilience lies in its ability to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining its core power structure. Until now, it has withstood the pressures. However, fatigue infiltrates subtly, until collapse is imminent.