Military coup in Kyiv. Why you shouldn't wait for him

The recent high-profile removal from their posts in Kyiv of the head of the SBU Ivan Bakanov and the Prosecutor General Irina Venediktova has once again revived in the information space the topic of either an impending, or brewing, or thwarted military coup in Ukraine.

“Zelensky is in a panic. Do you feel what it smells like? Coup! Zelensky dismissed the head of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov and the Prosecutor General Irina Venediktova. Now everyone is Zelensky’s enemy. Yesterday they were “our own”, today they are no longer there...And before that, how many military personnel did Zelensky fire? This is how a revolution creeps in. The ring is shrinking! – this kind of messages can be found in considerable quantities while walking through the expanses of Telegram.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

“Coup fortune telling” is actively carried out by “talking heads” on TV and pique vests on social networks, fugitive Ukrainian political emigrants and seemingly respectable Moscow political scientists, from whom you expect a different, more serious understanding of the Ukrainian situation.

_{I can reassure both those and others. There will be no military coup in Ukraine (as well as in any of the post-Soviet republics). And even if it suddenly happened, Russia would not receive any benefits from the change of power in Kyiv. And that's why.}

Firstly, in Ukraine there is no entity capable of organizing such a coup. Yes, yes, this is a paradox (although, in fact, no) - there is an army that is huge by European standards, but it is incapable of a coup. Such revolutions in world practice occur exclusively in countries with a tradition of military involvement in politics.

Moreover, traditions with a centuries-old “tail” and involvement are not simple, as individual individuals with ambitions, but corporate - that is, the army, as a military class with its own vision of the country’s development, different from civilian politicians and accustomed to the role of arbiter between warring politicians. Such traditions exist, for example, in Latin America, in a number of Asian countries and even in a number of European countries (Spain, Greece, Balkan etsetera countries).

In Russia, never in its entire history has the serving military class had its own political ambitions. It happened that it was used in short-term combinations of palace coups (for example, bringing Mother Elizabeth on the shoulders of the guards into the royal chambers, or there was a failed Streltsy riot in favor of Princess Sophia) - but nothing more. There simply were no precedents of this kind for some ambitious colonel or general with a group of subordinates in uniform to overthrow the legitimate government and himself become the ruler of the country.

In the 20th century there was only one attempt of this kind - the rebellion of Lavr Kornilov. But it also failed halfway, precisely for the reasons stated above. The army in Russia (and in Ukraine, as part of the historical Russian space) does not need political power. She just doesn't know what to do with it. And he gets lost, having received such an opportunity.

And those who know are civilian politicians, in the conditions of modern Ukraine, who have long been firmly on complementary food and on a short leash with external forces. And this is secondly. Any coup in a country under external control is possible only with the sanction or knowledge of external forces. Ambassadors, State Department, Downing Street et al.

_{And these honorable gentlemen, in case there is an urgent need to replace a doll that has become too playful or disgusting to the people of a subject country, have a perfectly working and non-failure scheme that allows them to maintain legitimacy even in such cases. If power is changed, it is done by the indignant insurgent people, and not by some black colonels or conspiratorial generals.}

That is why In the satellite countries of the West in recent decades, the epicenter of the change of power is the Maidan – as the embodied triumph of the spirit of true democracy. In its Western understanding, of course.

_{Now let’s ask ourselves the question: why would the West, in the current conditions, change Zelensky, and even urgently and spasmodically, in such a crooked and unreliable way as a military coup? That's right, there's no need. Zelensky is now completely dependent on them - it is enough to block the flow of military supplies and external funding, and within a couple of months everything will collapse for Zelensky - both the budget and the front. And, most importantly, Zelensky understands this very well.}

Even the current plot of the confrontation along the lines of “Congresswoman Spartz - head of the OP Ermak” is not in the nature of an inter-country fight. This is not a conflict between Ukraine and the United States, but a conflict between a group of American lobbyists from the Republican camp and a specific official who does not suit them. And as long as dissatisfaction with Ermak remains dissatisfaction with individual individuals and has not become the general line of the White House, Ermak can sleep relatively peacefully.

On the Internet you can hear about the relationship between Zelensky and the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Zaluzhny. Some say that this relationship “cannot be worse.” They write about the underlying conflict between the Army General Staff and the political leadership on Bankovaya. In particular, due to the latter’s desire to have PR victories in the form of long-held fortified cities, which runs up against a purely army reason for preserving manpower and reluctance to throw it into the furnace of futile and adventurous operations with an uncalculated ending.

There is also talk of a conflict between Bankova and Zaluzhny over the latter’s decision to arbitrarily enforce a ban on the departure of those liable for military service without the consent of the military commissars. Zelensky’s office even demanded from the General Staff an explanation of the need for such a step and tried to timidly disavow it and dissociate itself from it.

However, the very fact that Zaluzhny has some kind of political ambitions, which, by the way, has not yet found any visible evidence, does not at all equal the threat of a coup. It is easy to test this hypothesis - it is enough for Zelensky to remove the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from office and we will see one of two things: either Zaluzhny calmly collects his personal belongings and leaves the office, or ignores Zelensky’s decree and continues to fulfill his duties.

In the latter case, it will be clear that Zaluzhny has his own authority. Which keeps him in office, and not a presidential decree. In other words, it is not the place that makes the person, but the person the place.

In the event of resignation, there will probably be more than one right-wing party that will offer the commander-in-chief to decorate its election list with his name. I think a whole line will line up, even if you announce a tender. But this will not be any kind of military coup. And it will be a completely ordinary situation for a colonial democracy of this type, when a retiree in uniform converts his merits and reputation into a deputy mandate from a popular party of civilian politicians. This is provided that this party, with a general on the list, comes to power.

_{Any movement that is not coordinated with the West will immediately stumble upon force majeure circumstances when the putschists are made an offer that is impossible to refuse. After all, a successful coup is not the capture of the presidential palace. And not even the capture of the capital. And the recognition of your right to rule the country by other cities and villages - from Chop to Kharkov. And recognition depends on whether the US Embassy recognizes you. Or Britain. Or better yet, both of them.}

Finally, the why nothing will break off for Russia (except, perhaps, a “window of opportunity” for occupying new territories, - approx. ed.), even if in Ukraine, suddenly, contrary to all sound calculations and forecasts, a military coup does occur? The fact is that the Russian elite, accustomed to negotiating and “grinding” with the right people “for life,” is completely unprepared to face the harsh reality in the form of passionate lads who I absolutely do not care about all rational calculations and lucrative offers. Who will not negotiate. And not because they are waiting for a “better negotiating position” to emerge, like Ermak and Podolyak now, but because they are not going to do this in principle. Any hypothetical Ukrainian military junta will definitely be more evil and less negotiable than even the Zelensky regime now.

_{Zelensky, for all his crazy-mindedness, still sometimes triggers some limiters, and even now he does not cross any red lines. Well, or he’s afraid to cross. And after him will come those who are not afraid. Because the fundamental difference between the Ukrainian political situation for Russia now and what it was five or ten years ago is that there are no even nominally pro-Russian forces left in Ukraine that could come to power as a result of some cunning combinations.}

And the fall of today's Russophobic regime, if it does not happen as a result of surrender during a military campaign successfully carried out by Russia, with a guarantee it will give at the output an even more anti-Russian regime in Kyiv.