The Wagner chief disputes a report that he supplied to betray Russia.

Published: May 15, 2023

The head of the Wagner personal navy group on Monday rejected a report that he had supplied to share with Ukraine the positioning of Russian Army troops round Bakhmut in alternate for a withdrawal of Kyiv’s forces from the world in jap Ukraine.

The Wagner group has been a driving drive behind Russia’s monthslong battle to take Bakhmut, which has value hundreds of lives on each side and decreased a lot of town to rubble. Its founder, Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, has publicly clashed with Russia’s navy management over the combat for town, accusing them of ravenous his forces of ammunition.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday {that a} U.S. intelligence doc leaked on the messaging platform Discord stated that Mr. Prigozhin advised contacts in Ukraine’s navy intelligence directorate that he was prepared to betray the Russian military’s places round Bakhmut if Kyiv agreed to withdraw from round Bakhmut. A Ukrainian official advised The Post that Mr. Prigozhin’s provide — made “more than once” — had been rejected.

In an audio assertion printed on Monday by his press service, Mr. Prigozhin referred to as the report “speculation” and a “hoax.” He prompt that Russia’s corrupt elites, who he stated envied his fighters’ achievements on the entrance strains in Ukraine and had been desperate to tank his repute, could possibly be accountable.

Mr. Prigozhin’s mercenaries have taken lead in attempting to seize Bakhmut, the positioning of the longest and one of many bloodiest battles of the conflict, whereas Russian troops have managed the world across the metropolis’s flanks. Over the previous couple of weeks, Mr. Prigozhin has stepped up his accusations of incompetence towards the Russian navy management.

Despite overtly feuding with prime Russian officers, Mr. Prigozhin has been cautious to not criticize President Vladimir V. Putin.

Dmitri S. Peskov, the spokesman for Mr. Putin, stated that he wouldn’t touch upon The Post’s report, however stated that “it looks like another hoax.”

Source web site: www.nytimes.com