Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: How is the West responding to Prigozhin’s abandoned revolt?

Diplomacy Watch: How is the West responding to Prigozhin’s abandoned revolt?

Some are urging Kyiv to take advantage of chaos in Russia to ramp up its counteroffensive

Europe

Yevgeny Prigozhin’s short-lived mutiny last weekend has, perhaps not surprisingly, overshadowed any other news concerning the Russia-Ukraine war in recent days. 

In public, Western officials have said very little about how they are interpreting what unfolded over the weekend. But privately, there have been wide-ranging discussions about how the revolt will affect the future of the war — and the conclusion is uncertain, according to a number of reports from this week. 

On one hand, some hope that domestic distractions and in-fighting in Moscow can boost Kyiv’s counteroffensive, which has so far struggled to gain ground. “As the United States and its European allies work to make sense of last weekend’s chaos in the Kremlin, they’re urging Kyiv to seize a ‘window’ of opportunity that could help its counteroffensive push through Russian positions,” reported Politico. “It’s best to hit an enemy while it’s down, and Kyiv would be hard-pressed to find a more wounded Russia, militarily and politically, than it is right now.”

In the U.S. Congress, these dynamics have increased hopes that it will be easier to pass the next aid package for Kyiv. Talks had reportedly stagnated in the aftermath of the debt ceiling deal and Republican opposition to sending more funds. “I would hope what [the mutiny] does is reinforce to members of Congress, particularly some of my Republican colleagues, who were talking about not continuing funding Ukraine, that this is why it is important to make sure that we are funding Ukraine to push forward,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told MSNBC on Monday. 

On the other hand, Western governments are worried about the potential consequences of chaos in Russia, including questions about what would happen to Moscow’s nuclear weapons if Vladimir Putin’s regime became unstable, according to the Financial Times.

“[The weekend’s events] made clear that we are not in agreement on the outcomes of what will happen if Ukraine wins this war and what that will do to Russia,” an anonymous western official told FT. Some G7 governments are urging Kyiv against decisions that could further escalate the war, including moves like  “launching attacks on Russian territory with the aim of increasing instability,” according to the report. 

The FT also suggested that congressional supporters of providing Ukraine with long-range missiles, including ATACMS, were concerned that the short-lived rebellion would make it more difficult to convince the White House to agree out of fear that such artillery could further destabilize Russia. But the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Ukrainian officials believed they “had received positive signs in recent weeks that the U.S. had come around on the ATACMS system.”  

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— An administration official confirmed to Politico that the Biden administration communicated with Putin’s government during the weekend to tell Moscow that U.S. officials viewed the mutiny as an internal issue. “Everything was done to ensure that Russia didn’t see an American hand in all this,” Ian Bremmer, the president of the Eurasia Group, who first wrote about the backchannel communication, told Politico. “From a U.S. perspective, that was actually quite useful, being able to communicate to Moscow that America’s policy is to defend Ukraine and help them get their land back but that it’s not regime change or destroying Russia.”

— Pope Francis sent a peace envoy, Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, to Moscow this week. "The main purpose of the initiative is to encourage humanitarian gestures, which can contribute to facilitating a solution to the current tragic situation and find ways to achieve a just peace," the Vatican said in a statement. The envoy reportedly met with Putin adviser and former Russian ambassador to Washington Yuri Ushakov, but not with Putin himself. Zuppi, who helped mediate an end to Mozambique’s civil war in 1992, also met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv early June. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Moscow "highly appreciates the efforts and initiatives of the Vatican to find a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis.”

— Jens Stoltenberg will serve as NATO’s chief for another year, according to Politico. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has played a major role in the decision with a number of capitals preferring to maintain the experienced politician, known for his careful rhetoric, during a politically sensitive time for the alliance,” report Lili Bayer and Alexander Ward.

U.S. State Department news:

In a press briefing on Wednesday, State Department spokesman Vedant Patel remained tight-lipped about Washington’s reaction to the Prigozhin’s mutiny. “We continue to monitor the situation and will continue to be in close coordination with our allies and partners. As we’ve said before, this is an internal Russian matter, and it’s too soon to know the impacts, both for the immediate region, but to your other question about potential impacts in other parts of the world. The one thing I will just make clear is that our support for Ukraine will continue,” he said. 


Europe
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.