Source · Select Committees · Foreign Affairs Committee
Recommendation 2
2
Accepted in Part
Paragraph: 15
Wagner Network is opportunistic but ultimately guided by the Russian state, delivering geopolitical benefits.
Conclusion
The Wagner Network is highly opportunistic and not a straightforward proxy for Russia, even though the Russian state has sometimes directed, facilitated, and supported its military operations, notably in Libya and Ukraine. Even when the network has acted purely in its own economic interests, Russia is likely to have benefited financially or in geopolitical influence from its presence. Its guiding hand has been the Russian state.
Government Response Summary
The government partially agrees with the committee's analysis of the Wagner Network, outlining its ongoing use of sanctions to deter and disrupt malign Wagner activity, including recent designations of 13 individuals and businesses involved in Mali, CAR, and Sudan, and will consider the committee's analysis for further action.
Paragraph Reference:
15
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
Partially agree. 12. The Wagner Group was designated in its entirety under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 in March 2022. Yevgeny Prigozhin, its then leader, was designated under The Libya (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 in December 2020. 13. We continue to use sanctions policy to deter and disrupt malign Wagner activity. On 20 July, the UK designated 13 individuals and businesses involved with the Wagner Group in Mali, Central African Republic (CAR) and Sudan. They include Konstantin Pikalov, Prigozhin’s ‘right hand man’, as well as Al-Solag mining, a Wagner front company not designated by the EU or US. The designations limit their financial freedom by preventing UK citizens, companies and banks from dealing with them, alongside freezing any assets held in the UK, and imposing travel bans on the individuals. 14. The Government’s ability to sanction individuals and entities depends on being able to build individual cases in line with the statutory requirements of the relevant geographic or thematic sanctions regime. These may differ from the grounds available to the United States and the European Union. Each country’s sanctions regimes are different, and each country uses them for different purposes and has different approaches in applying sanctions. For example, the UK relies on ‘ownership and control’ provisions, which means that subsidiaries are not designated separately. 15. The Government welcomes the analysis provided in Appendices 1 and 2 of the FAC’s report and will consider this in detail when considering further action.