Russia, the Wagner Group and the Fall of Yevgeny Prigozhin.

In this episode, Mark sits down with Professor Mark Galeotti, to discuss his new book, co-authored with Anna Arutunyan, ‘Downfall: Prigozhin, Putin, and the new fight for the future of Russia’.

The life of Yevgeny Prigozhin was nothing if not extraordinary. After an earlier stint in prison in Russia, he turned his hands to business, became a catering magnate, then a troll master, and finally the leader of the infamous Wagner PMC (Private Military Contractor).

The actions of the Wagner Group in places like Mali, the Central African Republic and other countries in Africa led to it being designated a transnational organized criminal group by the US in early 2023, whilst it was locked in a fierce battle with Ukrainian forces in the city of Bakhmut, Ukraine.

At the same time, Prigozhin was involved in a very public war of words with the Russia MoD, particularly with then Minister of Defence and close associate of President Putin, Sergei Shoigu. This spat eventually boiled over and led to Prigozhin’s ill-fated ‘March of Justice’ in 2023 which made it to the very edge of Moscow. This catastrophic decision ultimately led to his death, alongside several other members of the Wagner leadership, in a dramatic plane crash a few months later.

In this episode Mark Galeotti sits down with Mark Shaw to talk about Yevgeny Prigozhin, his life and career, his turbulent relationship with certain members of the Russian elite, his posthumous reinvention as the ultimate Russian patriot, where he sits in the arc of Russian history and the future of the Wagner Group without him.

====================================================

Mark Galeotti’s book ‘Downfall: Prigozhin, Putin, and the new fight for the future of Russia’ is available here: https://amzn.eu/d/jiIaqS8

Audible version: https://amzn.eu/d/9Tb9MIE

====================================================

Underworlds with Mark Shaw Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXSX1Xu1kM0ss7EEqXOflp3d-lZw4LfIe

====================================================

📱 YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@UCP-lqJdhM-9iDKkswuVcXZA

🌎 VISIT US! Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime - https://globalinitiative.net/

🎧Audio version: https://link.chtbl.com/7c27X1CM

🎧WHY NOT TRY OUR OTHER PODCASTS:

🎧Deep Dive: Exploring Organized Crime - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXSX1Xu1kM0spSX0QUq7j0NmIZOqyDTZQ

🎧The Index - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXSX1Xu1kM0uc_4CftGl8PrwHA3IK5WeI

===================================================

FOLLOW US

X - @gitoc

LinkedIn - @Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime

IG - @gi_toc

===================================================

Welcome to Underworlds from the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime.

My name is Mark Shaw, and in today's episode, I'm talking to Mark Gagliotti, who's written a fascinating life history of Yevgeny Prigozhin called Downfall.

It tells the story of his relationship with Putin, the rise of Wagner, his involvement in the invasion of Ukraine, and it is, in many ways an unbelievable story and a very, very good read.

Over to the episode.

It's such a huge pleasure to.

To have you discussing the book.

And I have to say that I'm not a Russia expert, obviously, but the book kind of shattered a couple of stereotypes that I had.

One, that Putin is this incredibly decisive figure who makes a whole lot of decisions.

The second that Prigozhin himself had a lot of agency.

He sort of.

He operated, he was independent, he moved around.

He was not a key player, but he was on the out.

But still, he.

He determined his own fate.

At least that's what I took from reading this book.

And I have to say, the book is fantastic.

It's an absolutely great read, filled with action, humor.

I mean, you just couldn't ask for anything more.

Is Prigozhin a decisive figure in Russian history?

Your conclusion says some interesting things, but you portray him in part, at least in one part as a kind of big figure, and in another part as a sort of.

Is it too strong to say, a sort of streetwise dimwit, not the brightest guy, but in another part, as somebody who's got courage, he steps forward, he speaks truth to power.

So what, is he or is he all of these things?

I mean, to a degree, he is all of those things.

Again, none of us, frankly, are the simple stereotypes.

You know, I think that in some ways, if I can just sort of pull back slightly, I mean, when Anna and I were thinking about writing this book, because we had several people saying, oh, you should write a book about Prigozhin.

And we were thinking, do we really want to devote a chunk of our lives to chronicling this deeply unpleasant entrepreneur thug?

And then, well, we thought, well, actually, not so much for Prigozhin's sake, but because it's a way of illustrating actually how this whole system emerged and evolved and the degree to which it relies on people like Prigozhin.

So to go back to your point about which of these things Prigozhin is, he is a man who clearly had a certain.

Let's say, a certain skill set.

I mean, he clearly knew how to flatter people in power and also how to control, in often very brutal ways, people beneath him.

He never learned how to deal with peers, which is one of part of his downfall.

He came out of his time in the prison camp system clearly highly entrepreneurial.

He didn't manage to set up a business while behind bars, but at the same time had no real kind of constraints.

He wasn't held back by family connections or anything else.

And I think this was the thing, it's that someone like Prigozhin was in many ways a man of his times.

And so this is why Prigozhin was interesting.

He ultimately failed because precisely of the limitations of his skill set, but he was someone who managed to both help shape the Putin era, but above all was a product of it.

Monk, this you say some interesting things about.

Well, at least somebody who tried to write on Prigozhin before the threats came thick and fast.

Did it?

This seems a strange question, perhaps, but did it?

The fact that he's dead, did that make it easier to write a more sort of complete, rounded story from your perspective, or did you suddenly hear when he was dead, oh, my goodness, this key figure is gone.

This makes it even less relevant, or whatever the case.

I mean, to be honest, that was part of the sort of solipsistic initial response to when he died.

That sense of what does this mean for us?

That's inevitable.

No, I mean, the interesting thing is we actually signed the contract to this book two weeks before his mutiny.

So when we originally pitched the idea and signed it, he was still very much a key figure within this system, even if increasingly, I mean, this was after all sort of summer of last year, increasingly kind of on the ropes.

Then there was this mutiny.

And unsurprisingly and perfectly legitimately, that's the point where the publisher said we really would quite light this book out and fast.

But again, there was that point where we think, well, actually, this is what really makes him interesting, because precisely this is someone who has been such a beneficiary of the system, in some ways, almost a poster child for the Putin era.

Not the oligarchs, but the minigarchs who are the real foot soldiers keeping this system running.

And then of course, there was, two months later, there was his mysterious, but not so mysterious plane crash.

And so, yes, again, there was that sense of, okay, what does this mean for us?

But I think it was very, in some ways, very useful for two reasons.

One, on a purely, shall we say, book writing technical level, it did allow us to write a final chapter, which was a final chapter, and it wasn't full of who can tells and such like.

But also, I think it really does mark the point at which actually Prigozhin matters, because in some ways, up to that point, he was a representative of a particular element within the Putin elite.

But the very fact that he turned against it, I mean, for his own reasons, and in some ways that it, that the system itself chose to devour him, even though he was an insider in due course, is where his real historic importance lies.

It's that first of all, by his mutiny, he reveals certain weaknesses within the Putin system that hadn't been obvious before.

And secondly, by his murder.

And I think that is, frankly what it was.

It's the very first time that the Putin system has repudiated a deal made with an insider.

And again, that will have long term implications.

So actually, in that respect, that nice Mr.

Putin did us both a favor by actually, by his own actions, making Prigozhin more important than he could otherwise have been.

Very interesting.

Mark, when you and Anna heard about the mutiny, did you have a sense?

Wow.

Well, you had just signed the book, right?

So you had a sense, you have a peak in the story.

Did you have a sense that this was also his death warrant?

I mean, that.

I'm not linking the book to say you were relieved and this helped you.

I mean, it's a genuinely analytical question.

Were you?

Well, this is both, obviously an explosive case situation step, but this may be the end of our main character.

Was it your sense then, at that time, how did you read the mutiny?

I mean, it was an extraordinary sort of period and to see that happen, and particularly just how easily they were able to take this key city of Rostov on Don and then move towards Moscow.

But yes, at that point, I think it was fairly clear that no one really ought to be offering Prigozhin life insurance now to be Honest, Once.

I mean, because it was a very quick process from start of the mutiny to the deal that ended it once that deal had been struck.

To be honest, I anticipated the Prigozhin would have maybe a year or so, either to demonstrate his loyalty and to buy his way back into the fold, or for the regime to have decided, okay, he's now no longer in so much public view, we can dispose of him more safely and quietly.

So I hadn't anticipated there'll be quite such a quick turnaround from traitor to invited to tea in the Kremlin to falling out of the sky north of Moscow.

But nonetheless, I think it was fairly clear that it was unlikely that this was going to end well in the long term.

For people who haven't read the book, this is great.

It's a couple of paragraphs which sort of analyze his decision to take the step to mount the mutiny.

Can you talk about that?

Because that's a little bit what I was saying, that that's Agency, right?

He steps outside of the system and he does this decisive thing.

And he knows the system.

He himself must have known that, well, this was profoundly dangerous thing to attempt.

Yeah, I mean, this is a point that, you know, obviously it's very hard to actually crawl inside someone's head, especially once they're dead, and try and work out exactly how it operates.

But I think it is clear that, look, as we say, it could well be.

The evidence is contradictory, but it could well be that, frankly, Prigozhin hadn't wanted to be the face of Wagner in the first place.

And he couldn't say no.

So this is an interesting thing.

He was kind of, in many ways pitchforked into this role of mercenary condottiere.

But over time, it increasingly became something that he was engaged in, fascinated with.

I think, again, it played to his sort of macho Persona that he liked being the idea of this sort of tough guy and the terror of the West.

And then when he went out and recruited prisoners from the labour camp system, it's interesting how the prisoners themselves would say about it that, you know, they felt that.

Exactly.

Prigozhin spoke to them as one of them.

They were able to be recruited because this is a guy who'd been through the Zone, the prison system, you know, and, you know, they basically felt that there was a.

A guy who had certain kind of their interests at heart.

And I think he did.

At the same time, he was willing to use them, Sedgwick's human ammunition in these horrific, what were called meat wave attacks.

But nonetheless, he felt that he and they were being taken for granted.

And so much of this became personalized in terms of his relationship with the Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu.

And again, this is where that point I made earlier about the fact that Prigozhin knew how to relate with superiors and inferiors but never with peers comes in.

You know, Shoigu was essentially.

I mean, actually stronger, but essentially a peer.

And Prigozhin couldn't really handle that.

He kept trying to basically bring Defense Minister Shoigu down, which was not going to happen because Shoigu was a personal friend of Putin's and also had a much greater institutional power base.

So eventually Shoigu, who's a much better behind the scenes political operator, manages to create the situation in which all the Wagner mercenaries are going to have to sign contracts with the Defense Ministry, which would be the kind of a final emasculation of Prigozhin.

And this is where I think sort of, again, you know, this is all just warmed over pop psychology, but I think both his own character and also the culture that he clearly did absorb from the prison system, there's this very brutal, very macho type of culture there where one of the things is you never back down.

Because.

Because if you back down once, you're going to spend your entire term behind the razor wire, backing down.

In Prigozhin's career, he'd never actually been defeated, shall we say, by a peer.

I mean, actually, yes, he sometimes had to operate.

He obviously knew that he wasn't as strong as the state.

But basically speaking, this is a man who had gone from success to success and wasn't very good at metabolizing the idea of a defeat.

And final point, and he says it.

I mean, I'm sure my point is much longer than the two paragraphs you mentioned.

We think this is extraordinary that Putin, that Prigozhin, might feel that he could challenge the state in this way and get away with it.

But the point is a.

It's.

In historical terms, it's not at all surprising for how mercenary companies try to renegotiate their contracts with the Bosque.

But even within the Russian context, in Chechnya, you have Ramzan Kadyrov, this willful dictator, who every time there's even some hint that the huge amount of federal subsidies which go to Chechnya and which help him ensure the quality of life in which he's become accustomed and also pay off his elites and build vanity projects and so forth.

Anytime anyone makes a hint that maybe it's time to scale those down slightly, he throws his weight around, whether he just says, oh, well, maybe it's time for me to retire, or in one case, he actually invaded a neighboring Russian republic over a territorial dispute, and each time he gets away with it.

Each time, actually, it's the state that backs down.

So, I mean, Kadyrov and Prigozhin ended up being in very different situations.

But nonetheless, I could see why Prigozhin might be able to convince himself that if he moves fast and he was thinking that he was actually going to be able to capture Shoigu and his chief of the general staff, Gerasimov, and essentially presents Putin with the fait accompli, Putin will take the line of least resistance, because that is often how Putin operates and side with him over against Shoigu.

So I think all of these things together, a mix of desperate hope, macho unwillingness to give in, and a sense of a genuine commitment to his boys, as he'd come to think of them.

All of those came together for him to think, okay, well, I either submit or I give one last throw of the dice, and he faithfully went for the latter.

Marcus, is Polozhin a familiar figure in Russian history, or is he a kind of outlier?

You've.

You've mentioned another parallel, the renegotiation of mercenary contracts.

Is he a simple product of his time, or can you think of others assertive because you use this language, the serfs.

Some of the language in the book is a sort of historical, analytical language to place him.

Hence my question.

No, I think that there is a very definite.

Well, anyway, actually, I think two historical parallels worth drawing.

One of them is that there's a constant conflict in Russian history between what we could call the boyars, in other words, the upper aristocrats, the most powerful figures, and the gentry, the people who are actually running the country, whether they're, you know, colonel of a regiment here or a large landowner there.

And often the role of the Tsar, the monarch, has been to play these two social strata off against each other.

He needs the boyars, he needs the gentry, but so long as he can basically keep them fighting against each other, then he can control the situation.

Prigozhin was ultimately at best, gentry.

Shoigu was definitely a boyar.

So I think there was an element of, for want of a better word, a kind of class relationship there.

But more to the point, if one looks at the great rebellions which have characterized Russian history, you know, particularly coming from or originating from Cossacks, people like Pugachov and the like, almost invariably these are people who were once servants of the state, they were loyal and then they felt the state had betrayed them, had taken their loyalty for granted, had not observed the social contract, and thus they had turned against the state.

And again, I think that's the tradition into which Prigozhin falls, of the loyal servant of the state who ultimately feels that the state has screwed him over and that he's not going to take it.

And because often actually these rebellions were not about toppling the Tsar, they were about actually grievances that they wanted sorted.

And that sense of if I create enough trouble, the Tsar will have to deal with me, it's very much Prigozhin's thinking.

But if I can just throw in, there's also one third posthumous historical parallel which has emerged.

I mean, we've now seen, we're just over a month, a year, sorry, since Prigozhin's death.

And it's not just that Prigozhin's grave has become a shrine where people sort of leave flowers and things, but there's this constant claims, particularly in social media, amongst the sort of the so called turbo patriots, the ultra nationalist wings of sightings of Prigozhin.

He's been seen in Chad, he's been seen in the Central African Republic.

He was seen for some reason at a school assembly in Tumen, whatever.

And again, this speaks to a long tradition.

I mean, if one thinks after the death of Ivan the Terrible, there were not one, not two, but three false Dimitris who claimed to be Ivan's younger son in no, I Wasn't Killed when everyone thinks.

And people flocked to him not because they necessarily thought that they really were Prince Dimitri, but because they represented something different.

Again, a chance to rebel legitimately, to think that you're rebelling, but you're doing so in the name of something that is kind of right.

And again, I think this is what's interesting.

Now Prigozhin is being reinvented in certain circles as the ultimate patriot, the man who was willing to, as you said, speak truth to power, but also roll up his sleeves and do what the motherland needed without enriching himself.

When, of course, actually he enriched himself on a massive scale.

Fascinating.

Mark, this is obviously a podcast on organized crime, illicit markets, and that's a kind of constant thread through the book.

Prigozhin himself has a criminal background.

There's the Saint Petersburg mafia, there's organized crime in Russia more generally.

There's the activities of Wagner in Africa compared to criminal activities, et cetera, et cetera.

Can you piece that together for us, this refrain of organized criminality, what it means, how it shaped the actors on both sides?

Well, yes, this is the interesting thing, I mean, and it speaks to the whole definitional question that the field has grappled with time and time again.

And what is organized crime, particularly in the context of states in which the rule of law is weak?

I mean, Russia is a.

Russia is a very bizarre state in many ways, because essentially it is a modern, institutionalized, bureaucratic state that just happens to have a medieval court sitting on top of it.

So, you know, for most Russians, actually a fair degree of rule of law does exist.

You know, if someone welches on a contract, if someone bangs into your car or whatever, you can go to the courts and essentially it'll be sorted the way it would be anywhere else.

But as you go further up the system, the power of the rule of law becomes more and more attenuated.

So, I mean, Prigozhin's strength was precisely his ability to navigate this strange hybrid realm of places where actually the personalistic relationships matter above all, rather than the niceties of the law and those areas, other areas which actually were still to a large extent dominated by contract and so forth.

And I think this is the thing.

It's actually, it's a very hybridity of the Putin system that creates the opportunities for people like Prigozhin, but also creates the problems for people like us who are trying to look for neat definitions.

And Wagner is a classic case in point.

Wagner is a mercenary organization that is essentially created by the state, and much though not all of the time, its primary customer is the state, whether it's in Ukraine or Syria or elsewhere.

And yet Russian law expressly prescribes private military companies.

So in some ways it is an illegal venture from the get go, but in many ways it operates in Russia as if it were a perfectly constituted legal venture.

It signs contracts with whether it's its soldiers or whether it's its suppliers, and in the main actually follows those contracts, it behaves as if it's legal.

But then when you look at its operations, particularly at Africa, there it's great strength.

And one of the reasons why I don't think actually it will in the long term survive in a post Prigozhin world and under its new Branding of the strangely tone deaf Africa Corps is what they decided to call it is precisely because you had a mercenary organization that operated like so many others.

But the point is, what really made it different was the whole back end, the fact that it was part of Prigozhin's wider business empire, the Concord Group, which meant that precisely you could hire it without having to pay cash on the nail, but instead by providing rights to a gold mine here or a diamond concession there, that much of the money was then transferred through what could be politely described as untransparent and non traditional channels.

That this was an organization that has no problem at all paying kickbacks.

Indeed, the norm, the expectation is that whoever signs a contract with Wagner can anticipate a certain amount flowing back into their private accounts.

And Prigozhin himself at the heart of this, precisely because of his capacity to, on the one hand, be legitimate enough within the Russian system that he could speak with a certain amount of authority and people would treat him as a representative of the Russian state in many ways, but on the other hand, sufficiently deniable and illegal that he can use all these questionable ways, whether it's smuggled gold heading via United Arab Emirates to reach Russia and such like.

So, I mean, again, hybrid state begat this hybrid structure that was a bit like an organized crime group, a bit like a regular private military company.

And it could be whichever one, it could anyway morph from being more one thing than the other, as circumstances required.

Marg, given all of this, what do you think Putin, the Russian elite, learned from the Prigozhin series of events?

This very interesting bits and pieces in the book, you know, after the mutiny, before, how he was dealt with, the thinking or the sort of orientation of different actors, what do you think the lessons that would have been drawn are?

I mean, I think the interesting thing is if one thinks about Putin and the actual state, I think the lessons they learned were essentially very narrow and very technical.

I mean, for example, they're now, they continue to be private military companies fighting in Ukraine, but it is clear that they're a very different sort, that they're really just simply using private military companies as structures through which to recruit more warm bodies for the war.

And although these private military companies may technically be owned by or sponsored by business people, business groups, local governors, a whole variety of different actors, none of them have anything like the kind of personal stake, let alone command authority that Prigozhin had.

So no more private armies.

That's a very, very kind of practical, technical lesson that's been learned.

The interesting thing is that on the other hand, I think the Putin regime has.

It's either not learned or more likely deliberately chosen to ignore the much bigger political questions about precisely what happens when you have an essentially personalistic system which relies on constant struggles and Putin's role as the sort of the grandmaster of this game of divide and rule.

The fact is he's going to throw up figures like Prigozhin who are going to become increasingly problematic in fighting their own struggles.

But I think, finally, if one looks at lessons that the elite has learned, I think it's quite interesting the degree to which the Putin regime came out of this very badly, and Putin himself personally did.

When the mutiny happens, as is usually the case for all the bare chested machismo of the sort of the formal portrayal of Putin actually in a crisis, he tends to hide.

And this is exactly what happened.

We first of all had a period in which no one really knew what the hell was going on.

He may well have actually been evacuated out of Moscow at the time, though officially he stayed there to rally the forces.

When he eventually does emerge, that's what he calls Prigozhin, a traitor.

And that's the point at where Prigozhin realizes that his gambit has failed and he needs to negotiate.

But Putin is clearly so desperate for this whole crisis to go away that he actually gives Prigozhin what is, I think it's fair to say is too good a deal.

If you just describe someone as a traitor to more or less give them a deal that says, look, you can hold on to most of your businesses, just go to Belarus, keep on operating in Africa, and, you know, and everything will be fine, that actually lacked credibility, frankly, that made Putin look, look weaker.

And one of the reasons for that is precisely because the security apparatus that we and Russians and I think Putin himself had always thought was the final backstop of his regime proved notably unwilling to actually support the Kremlin against Prigozhin.

Nor were they willing to support Prigozhin.

I mean, he himself had thought that half the army would back him.

Well, I think he had 90 guys defect to his side, that's all.

But the main thing is most of the security apparatus was just willing to basically sit it out and just see what happened.

And I think that was a particularly chilling shock to the regime and not one they really know how to respond to.

And finally, the very fact that Putin welched on a deal, he clearly had reached an agreement with Prigozhin that allowed Prigozhin to survive.

Now, Putin may be a man who breaks international law every day before breakfast, but nonetheless, like any mob boss, he'd understood the importance of loyalty within the gang.

And this is the first time, really, that Putin had actually broken a deal with an insider.

Not some dissident, not some foreign businessman or whatever, but an insider.

And that broke the ponyatia, the understandings that I think are central to how this personalistic regime relies.

So that really was a shocking thing for the elite to actually have Putin now break a deal, which means that next time there's a deal, will people think, well, okay, but will Putin hold to it or not?

Well, because, interesting.

When I had followed events obviously not closely like you have, and then reading the book, when Prigozhin died, there was a sense that Putin planned this the whole time.

Right.

This was very, you know, strategic.

A lot of the attributes that are given to him and which I think a narrative is built around those.

But actually, when you read the book, it's not clear that his death was inevitable.

Am I wrong in that.

In the sense that he did a deal, it was a good deal, as you say.

Do you think when negotiating that deal, Putin had already decided he would die, or was this just sort of like an incremental set of decisions later, and then it was done?

Because at the time, people sort of sat back and said, I told you so.

You know, Putin's strategic.

This guy was sort of asking for it.

The point you make, which is, I think, a very apt point on the Mafia boss equivalency, which is, he broken the unstated agreement, which shakes everybody up and undermines trust, which is core to sort of holding the center together.

But I guess the question is, in your reading, was his death an inevitable issue when the very negotiations were taking place, if you follow what I'm asking.

Yeah, I mean, I suspect that kind of probably inevitable in the long term.

But I don't think for a moment that Putin was thinking, right, we'll sign the deal, lull him into a full sense of security, and then I'm going to kill him.

Because if nothing else.

Well, firstly, Putin is not strategic.

We see that in so many other ways.

He is a tactician rather than a strategist.

He responds to the moment, and sometimes that works well and sometimes that works badly.

Secondly, he had many other opportunities to dispose of Prigozhin before that point, and he didn't have to even do it in such a pyrotechnic way.

He could have had Prigozhin Arrested, put on trial.

Or indeed, Prigozhin could have fallen out of the metaphorical window when the next week, he was invited to the Kremlin for a meeting with Putin, accompanied by about 50 of his field commanders.

There were so many times in which, actually, Prigozhin was entirely within the grip of the Kremlin.

They didn't need to do it at this time in this way.

So it's very hard to obviously crawl into the deep, dark recesses of Putin's brain.

But nonetheless, my sense is that, no, I mean, there wasn't any kind of specific plan or timeline, and instead, what's come out is, first of all, Prigozhin himself clearly thought he got away with it, at least for the moment, and he was going to throw himself into his Africa ventures.

I suspect precisely that was his way of.

He thought, this is how he can buy his way back into the Kremlin's favor, because it's clear that the Kremlin did appreciate the whole Concord and Wagner operations in Africa.

They had economic but above all, political value.

He's moving back and forth between Belarus and Russia without hindrance.

And we also know that there was actually debate within the Kremlin or within the government circles about what to do.

And by all accounts, one of Putin's kind of closest henchmen, Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, was a guy who actually had drawn together a plan for how Prigozhin can be killed, but that he had drawn it up on his own authority.

So, in other words, he had a plan ready to push on Putin rather than because Putin has said from the beginning, make sure that we're ready to kill him.

So I think that this is classic Putin.

This is classic Putin that, you know, he makes decisions and then he changes his mind.

We have a sense that somehow, again, everything always works out the way Putin wants, because in some ways, Putin is this gray blur.

He is in so many ways.

And again, I say this as someone who's also written a biography of Putin, but, you know, a gray, dull man, and in his very grayness, makes him a Rorschach inkblot over which observers can overlay.

You know, if they want to see him as the sort of the grand grandmaster of geopolitical 3D dimensional chess, they can see that in him.

I don't this point, you've covered it a bit, but just to explore it a bit more, of elite competition in the Russian system, which the book covers really well.

It's a bit like a soap opera, and There's a bit of humor in there.

Not that you deploy to great effect.

Just explain that Prigozhin, the military, the fsb, this personal competition you've talked about, the contracts, but this was.

This was something pending for a much longer period of time from Syria, where clearly, as you described, the Americans were allowed to essentially destroy a part of a force.

I mean, just talk us through that.

Because this competition, this more than a triangle, was underway for some time.

And as you portray it, Putin is above all of this intervening.

He doesn't want to disappoint.

In effect, he comes across as a weaker figure under which this competition occurs.

And he doesn't intervene to solve it.

He uses it.

As I read the book, yeah, I mean, this is absolutely central to how Putin manages the elite.

And in fairness, although I regard Putin as distinctly limited in many ways, one has to say this is where he's really shown his skill, is precisely creating this constant ferment within the elite, individual factions and institutions competing against each other, usually because of deliberately overlapping responsibilities and interests, because that, first of all, means that no one can really unite against him.

He remains the sort of the final decider at the top.

And secondly, precisely because he can go in and he can decide who wins this particular competition, if he gets to pick the winners and the losers, then that gives everyone a good reason to basically want to please and flatter and speak to the boss.

And let's be clear, the real currency, the true currency of Russia, is not the ruble.

It is Putin's favorite.

So that is often politically very functional, even if administratively dysfunctional, because precisely you have all kinds of different sort of competitions over particular areas of state activity.

The thing is, in this case, when you've got someone like Prigozhin who is not, as I say, in Putin's closest innermost circle, despite some of the talk, he was never a friend of Putin's.

He was a one of many suitors to Putin's attention.

He was clearly sort of trusted to a considerable degree or regarded as having certain competencies.

But even then, I mean, you know, Putin, we talk in the book at one point about a point when Putin just goody gratuitously decides to put him down.

You know, walking past him in St.

Petersburg and sort of says, oh, nice hairstyle, and points to his, you know, points to his head.

That's classic Putin.

He likes putting people down just to make sure that they appreciate where they are in the pecking order.

So in that respect, Prigozhin is like so many of These kind of, what I call them, ad hocrats, whose responsibilities are just simply whatever the boss wants them to be.

Hence, a catering magnate can become a troll master and then, in due course, a mercenary commander.

You're constantly trying to see how you can compete for the boss's favor.

And sometimes that means guessing what the boss is going to want tomorrow and providing it today.

And sometimes it's going to mean precisely doing down your rivals.

And this is.

This is exactly where Prigozhin found himself.

But the point is, as he rose, he was getting into more and more dangerous environments.

It's one thing when he was largely a kind of a catering and real estate magnate facing similar comparable figures.

But by the time he was running a mercenary army, and particularly at the point where, you know, he really was making his.

Shoigu famously would take Putin on holiday to hiking through Siberia with added photo opportunities.

And this is the environment in which he finds himself, and it's one in which he again, can demonstrate certain sort of primal skills.

But ultimately, Prigozhin's key blunder is that he's never able to make alliances.

When you're operating at that level, you need to have allies, not just patrons and clients, but allies, and he was never able to do that.

And again, that tells us something about the deinstitutionalization of the top of the Putin system, the degree to which it is.

It's about personalistic relationships, it's about your capacity to pitch your ideas or just simply your value to the boss.

And today he will support you.

He might not tomorrow.

So, like a shark, you have to keep swimming in order to keep breathing.

Mark, can you talk about the sourcing for the book, if that's the right word, because you're struck.

This is an authoritarian regime.

It creates its own narratives.

Except what you have here in the book, what Ana and you have done is, well, there's a lot of information available, or maybe not all of it is as valuable as some core parts.

But how do you work on Russia as a man like Prigozhin?

Where do you get the material from?

How do you weigh it and balance it as a researcher, scholar, academic?

Is there things you think that you have hints of that will still emerge that you skirted over in the book and you didn't have Enough evidence, For example, is it a struggle to piece something like this together?

Well, the honest answer is, yes, it is.

And certainly there are some anecdotes and things which kind of broke our hearts in that.

You know, we heard it and think, oh, that's a great story, but we've got one source that claims it and not necessarily an authoritative source.

We can't use it.

Yeah, I mean, look, first of all, I think there's often a misunderstanding about Russia.

On the one hand, yes, this is an information controlled society, but I think it's also actually one in which there is still a lot of pluralism within sourcing, even within the media.

I'm not just talking about social media type stuff.

I am continually astonished that there are investigative journalists, for example, who are still doing their job or trying to do their job at least.

Even though frankly being an investigative journalist in Russia has been demonstrated to be as dangerous as being a war correspondent.

But nonetheless they do it.

So there is quite a bit of information that is still out there.

Secondly, although we're seeing an increasing rollback, there have actually been quite a few moves within Russia, sort of, until recently, to push forward transparency.

So whether it's in terms of corporate ownership structures and the like, you know, there was actually a lot of, lot of information available.

Thirdly, I mean, yes, one also has to rely quite a bit on social media, which, you know, is always a very sort of questionable source because the risk is otherwise it's all about, you know, you find the quote or the post that suits the narrative that you already assume is there.

So one has to treat that with caution.

But nonetheless, there's a lot of stuff there.

But also there's personal contacts.

I mean, the thing is that, look, I've been working on Russia since God helped me.

It was still the Soviet Union.

And my co author, Anna Rotunyan, she had been political editor of the Moscow News, she was the senior Russia analyst for International Crisis Group.

She had her own network.

But the key thing is actually these are actually quite different networks.

I mean, mine had always focused largely on the sort of the security apparatus, the police and so forth.

Hers was much more politics and business.

And going back to your earlier point about what changed when Prigozhin died, it's worth noting that there were several sources who either wouldn't talk to us at all while Prigozhin was alive because he was notoriously not just litigious, but if you happened to be in Russia, you know, he would indeed threaten to have people killed and so forth.

And Others who were, after Prigozhin had died, suddenly, a lot more open in how.

How they spoke to us.

So there was a funny moment in which, although we were right close to the end of when we actually needed to submit the manuscript, suddenly one had people say, you know, when I, when I answered that question, I wasn't perhaps completely open about that.

And you're suddenly factoring in a whole new amount of information.

So, look, I mean, it's, obviously, it's inevitably difficult.

And there were points where either we had to indicate.

Well, it's like, for example, this whole question as to whether Prigozhin wanted or didn't want to actually run Wagner.

We've got the two perspectives.

My own personal hunch is actually that he didn't want to run Wagner.

But the point is we haven't got the data to actually prove that.

So we lay out both possibilities.

And there are other times when we did actually just have to make a leap of faith.

Just simply say, well, this feels like the right answer.

That's what you do.

But, no, I think that when it comes to Russia, the interesting thing is that although there are always certain specific bits that you're never going to know, what happens in Putin's discussions with his security chiefs, for example, that is the blackest of black boxes.

That's not going to come out for 50 years, unfortunately.

But beyond that, there's actually a surprisingly wide range of information sources still available on Russia Today.

Mark, you know, I've of course read your other stuff, and as to.

I mean, it's.

It's my assumption actually, that this is a different project for you, very personalized around one individual.

You slightly dismissively said warmed over pop psychology earlier.

I.

And I'm not sure that's true, but there's some very interesting analysis about, well, the man being a human, etc.

Competition, how people respond.

How did the book evolve?

You know, you've got these, the chapters which are very interesting because the chapter structure, Thug, entrepreneur, chef, mini garc, troll, master, conditier, scavenger, warlord, rebel, ghost, this sort of the multiple personalities of the man.

How did that evolve?

How were you.

Were there alternative ways that you debated about using the material?

Or did this just.

Was it just clear this was a man with multiple personalities, if you like, or ways that he could be pitched.

Yes.

I mean, first of all, to go back to your initial point about a different type of project, I mean, it is.

And in some ways it's precisely because it is not just my product, it's a hybrid of two people.

And it was a very equal writing process.

Most of the chapters, what would happen is we would discuss in advance, sort of, roughly speaking, what we thought it would cover.

Though there's always discovery when you're writing.

Usually Anna would write the first draft, but make sure it was well under word count.

Then I would add in all the bits that I wanted to add in and so forth.

And sometimes we discuss.

And I'm thinking, well, no, it's not this.

And Anna would say, yes, yes, it is that, or whatever.

Whereas with the more military oriented chapters, generally I would do the first draft and then Anna would do all the tinkering.

So this is definitely a sort of a geshed out project in that respect, but also.

Exactly.

I think it was a different way of trying to approach it.

There's so many books to try and talk about what Putinism is about and the Putin regime and such like, and they tend to start from structure and then illustrate it with people.

And this is why we thought, well, this actually is an interesting alternative way of trying to talk about a system is through the story of one person who coincidentally, or more to the point, conveniently, actually his career does track through so many of the developments of the pre Putin era and then the Putin era itself, and deciding to structure it around his different roles.

It was a way of, you might say, keeping to a relatively chronological span, which gives the reader an easy thing to hold onto and allows it more easily to kind of demonstrate the evolving patterns of what's happening in Russia at this time.

But actually, fortuitously, one could periodize his life quite so clearly it's not as if he stopped being an entrepreneur with his catering and real estate and marketing and everything else ventures when he was running the Trolls or running Wagner, they were constantly operating in the background.

But nonetheless there was this sense that he was meeting a variety of needs of the state.

And that's the crucial point.

Prigozhin's.

And it's strange because when you really dig into a person and you're watching all of their social media videos and any interviews they give and so forth, there is a sort of a weird cognitive dissonance that creeps in and you start to sort of become a bit of a partisan and he's still a horrible man.

But then there are times when you think there he has a point, you know.

But Prigozhin's brilliance was precisely his capacity to spot these evolving opportunities which were in themselves invariably products of the evolving state.

This is not just simply about how a market Evolves.

It's how a market is shaped by a political structure.

So in some ways, Prigozhin gave us that structure through his activities, and that gave us something that helps make the book kind of comprehensible.

As you've described, that you end with ghosts.

But you also have this fascinating concluding chapter about the.

Well, about the future of the Russian Federation and whether this will be viewed historically, the mutiny, or Prigozhin himself and his role as a sort of breaking point, I suppose, or whether this was more continuity.

What do you think it means for the future of Russia?

How will this be?

Ready?

Yes.

I mean, look, whenever you write something, you always want to be able to claim that this is absolutely pivotal and the whole world changed when this happened, which may prove to be the case, but is likely to be something of an exaggeration.

But on the other hand, I mean, I do think that Prigozhin, by his rise, but above all by his fall, did demonstrate some fundamental weaknesses of the Putin system.

And not just to us, we're not the important ones, but actually, I think, also demonstrated them to the Russian elite and the Russian population as a whole.

You know, the degree to which Putin, who for so long had precisely been the man who could manage the elite and the rivalries within them, failed to manage this, even though so many people have been telling him that the Prigozhin Shoigu rivalry was becoming crucially dangerous.

The fact that he was unable to rely on his security apparatus in this particular crisis, and the fact that he ultimately broke a deal with an insider, all of those are things that have become very much noticed, and they leave Putin in a weaker position for the next crisis, because this is a regime which, in my opinion, is, shall we say, strong but brittle.

It can handle the day to day, even with this ghastly war taking place in Ukraine.

But on the other hand, it's demonstrated itself the best of times not to be very good at dealing with the unexpected crisis.

And one thing one can say about politics is there will always be an unexpected crisis coming along.

We don't know when and what.

That's the whole point.

That's why it's unexpected.

But in the past, the regime was able to cope with crises thanks to three strengths.

Putin's personal legitimacy, his capacity to throw huge amounts of money at problems, and ultimately his control of the security apparatus.

Well, the money issue is already under pressure.

His regime, sorry, his authority, his legitimacy has been demonstrated to be much weaker than might have been thought and indeed has been weakened by the mutiny and more to the point, this was the first real test of the security apparatus's willingness to put itself in the line of fire for him.

And it showed that it was actually not that keen.

Thank you very much.

So going into the next crisis, the regime will be that much weaker.

Now, it doesn't necessarily mean that the next crisis will bring it down or the one after that, but the point is it is a progressive degradation.

So in this respect, I think one can say that Prigozhin sort of hammered some cracks into the edifice.

The main due course, under other pressures, break open.

But a final point is, and this is something that Anna, I mean, speaking as someone who she's Russian, American, but basically Russian and had been living in Moscow and obviously got out quickly when the invasion happened, you know, was much more sort of insistent that we should include, and I think she was absolutely right about this, is the sense that one of the things that Prigozhin also highlighted was the moral intellectual vacuum at the heart of this regime, that there is very little sense now for all the attempts to build the current conflict to some kind of grand civilizational struggle and so forth.

No one really believes that there is that sense that this is just a self interested bunch of often deeply incompetent figures running it.

And Prigozhin, by doing one of the most dangerous things for an information control authoritarianism, which is actually telling the truth or some of the truth about what was going on in the war, that helped explain why he was popular, but it also helped explain why he was dangerous.

And although Prigozhin didn't really offer anything else, I mean, he was not a revolutionary, he was just a self interested thug who ultimately ended up on the wrong side of the state.

But nonetheless, what happens now is that people have mythologized Prigozhin.

The people precisely now see him as a certain figure who fulfills some of the needs of the Russian people.

They want to have something in which to believe Putin is no longer that thing.

Thanks, Mark, that's excellent.

I really appreciate the discussion.

And the title is Downfall.

And from what you're saying there, of course, that's downfall of Prigozhin himself, but potentially downfall of much more.

It's a fascinating read.

Prigozhin, Putin and the New Fight for the Future of Russia.

Anna Arutynyan and Mark Gagliotti, and we've been speaking to Mark.

A great read.

Mark, thank you very much for the candid back and forth about the book, how you structured it, how you worked on it.

It's really, really a great read.

My great pleasure.

Good to talk to.