Seymour Hersh’s Intel Sources Say Putin Behind Prigozhin’s Killing

Seymour Hersh just dropped a new article at Substack. You can find it here, but it’s behind a paywall, so I will summarize the main points below.

The main assertion of the article is that a US intelligence source of Hersh’s has stated that Putin was behind Prigozhin’s death and the reason was that Prigozhin was potentially provoking NATO and that was too reckless and unacceptable for Moscow:

“Prigozhin was provoking NATO and he had to go,” the US intelligence official said. “The last thing Putin wanted to do was to give NATO further cause to shelve its growing doubts about the endless financing of [Ukraine President Volodymyr] Zelensky.” 

So, the official said, “Putin did it.” Prigozhin had become too dangerous.

The intelligence source also reveals that the plane that blew up with Prigozhin and some of his closet associates onboard was suddenly and inexplicably pulled in for service the day before the doomed flight.

It was then, the intelligence official said, that bombs with delayed fuses bombs were placed in the wheelbase. The bombs were set to explode after the wheels were retracted.

The explanation for how the plane was downed sounds plausible. However, the source does not provide any evidence that it was Putin who actually ordered or approved it. The source provides a potential motive but motive alone doesn’t prove anything. Prigozhin had made many enemies who also had motives. I’m not saying it’s impossible but I still harbor some skepticism that Putin would do such a thing right in the middle of the BRICS summit, taking attention away from the constructive strides Russia and the rest of the BRICS countries are making toward a multipolar world. Why put a black mark on your own best PR?

I welcome readers’ thoughts in the comments.

Some additional interesting nuggets from the Hersh article include the claim by Hersh’s source (presumably from the CIA) that the US/UK media reporting on the progress of the war has been terribly inaccurate and is far too credulous of what Kiev says:

“The goal of Russia’s first line of defense was not to stop the Ukrainian offense,” the official told me, “but to slow it down so if there was a Ukrainian advance, Russian commanders could bring in reserves to fortify the line. There is no evidence that Ukrainian forces have gotten past the first line. The American press is doing anything but honest reporting on the failure thus far of the offense.

“What happened to the use of cluster bombs by Ukraine? Weren’t they supposed to open the door? And Zelensky is now claiming Ukraine had hypersonic bombs. He’s been bullshitting us like this as he always does. Where are the engineers and scientists manufacturing them? In a bunker somewhere? Or in Kiev? He’s pretending—stalling as long as he can?

The source suggests that military intelligence provides similarly poor information that is being used by the White House but that more accurate intelligence exists but is somehow prevented from reaching decision makers in the executive branch:

“Here is the key issue,” the official told me. “This kind of reporting from the military intelligence community is going to the White House. There are other views,” he said, obviously referring to the Central Intelligence Agency, that do not reach the Oval Office. “What is going to happen? Will we be supporting Ukraine as long as it takes? It’s not like we are fighting the Führer in Germany or the Emperor of Japan. The other day former vice president [Mike] Pence said that if we don’t defend Zelensky in Ukraine, Russia will come after Poland next. Is that the White House’s policy?” 

The source also told Hersh that the new Defense Minister of Ukraine, Rustem Umyerov, is even more corrupt that the one who just left (Oleksiy Reznikov), but interestingly Umyerov was not on CIA director William Burns’ list of corrupt officials provided to Kiev during a visit in January.

The last interesting comment by the intelligence source was that Putin is focused on running a war that he sees as critical to his nation’s security and doesn’t care what the American public thinks of him.

20 thoughts on “Seymour Hersh’s Intel Sources Say Putin Behind Prigozhin’s Killing”

  1. Putin seemed sincerely upset that Prigo was killed. I don’t think Putin ordered it, but if it was ordered by some one in the Russian hierarchy, this would mean that Putin is not in total control and that he needs to look over his shoulder. If we’re looking at motives only, the Poles are the prime suspect. Also, we shouldn’t overlook the elimination of Wagner’s #2. It’s possible that he was the main target because he ran things on the ground while Prigo did PR. Last point: does hersh always know when he’s been played? I doubt it. Those intel folks are smooth operators, mixing truth and falsehood in just the right proportions.

    1. I have doubts, too. But Hersh doesn´t just talk to anyone. He has been around since the late 1950s. Question is, why should we believe everything US Intel says. Their analyses have been flawed often as well.

  2. I find it close to incredible that Putin ordered an assassination like this. Put most simply, if he has the power to do so and I am not sure he does*, the timing and the deaths of seven other people ,more or less over Tver, in the middle of the BRICS summit, and during a remembrance ceremony for the Battle of Kursk makes no sense.

    If Putin wanted him dead, and he has the power to order it,, the FSB or SVR should have been quite capable of arranging a discrete accident.

    My own feeling is that this was the USA &/or the UK, probably working with Ukraine. It reminds me of the Douma chemical attack in Syria where someone just got too fancy. My second choice is a straight Ukrainian attack. Of course, Prigozhin probably had so many enemies there could have been a line-up of perpetrators.

    Two other reasons for not believing the accusation is a) I doubt the US has the penetration of the Russian security services to have such details and b) the US security services have such a reputation for falsehoods and it is clearly in the US interest to blame Putin that the Daily Mail would be a more reliable source.

    *As Head of State Putin probably can order the execution of certain foreign nationals and clearly identified traitors/defectors who have fled the country. I am not so sure that the various Russian services would go along with an mass murder of Russian citizens in Russia. I don’t think even a US president could get away with that.

  3. OOPs, missed this.
    The last interesting comment by the intelligence source was that Putin is focused on running a war that he sees as critical to his nation’s security and doesn’t care what the American public thinks of him.

    Why would he? He is not in a popularity contest to get Man of the Year in Time Magazine. I find the comment interesting for the US arrogance it shows.

  4. Prigozhen was a loose cannon and needed to be sacrificed in the name of preventing WW3.

  5. Thank you for this column. As much as I value Hersh I too am doubtful of this blame on Putin. It is true the Poles were getting disturbed at activity near or on their border, which could well have been Wagner. But even so, even if this charge against Prighozin is correct, is this a weightier sin than the one he’d already committed with the convoy attack toward Moscow earlier in the summer, and the shooting down of Russian air personnel at that time?

    Stirring up NATO to shelve doubts seems flimsy to me. Further, the problem of Putin’s sacrificing further innocents on the plane, besides Prighozin and his second in command, is doubtful. Surely this is risky if the central question is Putin vs. Prighozin popularity, and an alternative to such a drastic step as assassinating Prighozin was arresting and confining him.

  6. Limited hangout Seymour Hersch and his unnamed sources again.

    We have no reason to believe a word he says.

  7. Putin could have killed Prigozhin anywhere, at any time, so to do it when BRICS was meeting screams the White west killed Prigozhin to embarrass Putin.

    This is the meaning behind the Hersh’s comments about Western intelligence services. Hersh has already seen the lying contempt Washington has for its allies, the environment, and world peace when Biden arrogantly asserted NordStream would be destroyed, before the war started.

    Now attacks on the Kerch Bridge, Nova Khakova Dam, and the Zaporozhye NPP have widened the target list for Russia. Can Europeans say, “Chunnel”, “TGV”, “Baltic pipelines”, or “GW Power plant”?

Comments are closed.