"The main problem is Shoigu and Gerasimov. It was the decisions of those two that blocked us from getting everything, despite the president saying that the ammunition was there"

Prigozhin assigns personal responsibility to Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov for a critical failure: obstructing ammunition deliveries to Wagner forces despite assurances from the president that supplies existed. The statement frames the problem not as a systemic shortfall or battlefield contingency but as a deliberate decision by two top military officials. It implies capability without execution, stockpiles were available, orders or promises were made at the highest level, yet the chain of command below the president allegedly thwarted fulfillment.

This framing serves several purposes. First, it absolves the president while isolating blame within the Ministry of Defense, preserving loyalty upward and channeling public frustration sideways. Second, it highlights a profound breakdown in command and control: if the commander-in-chief’s intent is being nullified by subordinates, either the institution is insubordinate or the claim of presidential support is a rhetorical shield. Third, it amplifies a narrative long used by Prigozhin, that bureaucratic rivalries and political calculus inside the Russian military establishment undermined battlefield effectiveness, especially during Wagner’s attritional fight around Bakhmut.

The accusation also gestures at power politics. By naming Shoigu and Gerasimov, Prigozhin challenges the MoD’s monopoly over logistics and legitimacy. Controlling ammunition is power; withholding it can discipline irregular actors, force integration, or degrade a rival’s battlefield stature. Presenting the shortage as intentional suggests sabotage or coercion rather than incompetence, thereby casting Prigozhin as both victim and truth-teller fighting entrenched mediocrity.

There is a practical battlefield subtext: ammunition scarcity translates into higher casualties and stalled offensives, which Prigozhin used to justify his harsh public broadsides and, later, his escalation against the military leadership. At the same time, the claim functions as a pressure tactic, mobilizing public and elite opinion to force resource allocation and embarrass adversaries within the state. The larger implication is institutional fragmentation: overlapping chains of authority, opaque logistics, and political gatekeeping that complicate Russia’s war effort and expose cracks in the cohesion of its security apparatus.