Are “color revolutions” possible in the LDPR and Transnistria?

Events in Belarus and Kazakhstan related to attempts to violently overthrow the government using the mechanisms of “color revolutions” make us think about the stability of the political systems of de facto states (PMR, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, DPR, LPR, NKR) that once existed in the territories were part of the USSR.

Denis Dennisov, director of the Institute of Peacemaking Initiatives and Conflictology, writes about this in his column for PolitNavigator.

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.

This problem is becoming increasingly urgent, as we can observe that the political verticals of a number of countries, traditionally considered stable and quite effective, either break under serious pressure (Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan), or survive due to colossal efforts, mainly of a forceful nature (Belarus). Over the past 10 years, there are enough such examples in the post-Soviet space to think about the situation with the stability of the systems of de facto states and the possibility of using the mechanisms of “color revolutions” in them.

At first glance, it may seem that the problem of using “color revolution” methods is not acute in the context of de facto states, especially if you focus on their official sources and major media (understanding that they are often also official sources, in a slightly different wrapper) . However, upon closer examination of the problem, there is a feeling that the mechanisms of “color revolutions” are already constantly manifesting themselves in these formations.

Another problem in studying this topic is the stereotype that all these entities are totally loyal to the Russian Federation - from political elites and security forces to ordinary people. As a result, there is an opinion that even in cases of crises of political systems and conditional coups d'etat, pro-Russian forces or, at least, politicians will definitely come to power with whom Moscow can negotiate on terms acceptable to itself (often this works, since it is no secret that Russia is the main donor for these entities).

_{In conditions of permanent strategic instability and tense relations between Russia and the collective West, the problem of destabilizing the situation in the de facto states of the post-Soviet space is becoming increasingly important, due to the fact that this may be a truly asymmetrical response, which few people expect.}

Based on this, we will try to briefly consider the key social strata and the possibility of their use in “color revolutions” in de facto states.

The political elites of such entities, since the emergence of de facto states in the 90s and XNUMXs, have been totally focused on Russia. Often their business was located in the Russian Federation or was firmly tied to a Russian partner. During this period, the children of the political elite studied entirely in Russian universities, and after that they often became Russian officials. For recreation, only domestic resorts or the most friendly countries were used.

_{Now everything has changed. Globalization has even reached the “bearish corners” of de facto states, and now we are faced with an amazing picture. In public rhetoric, the political elites of de facto states continue to remain completely loyal to the Russian Federation and the values ​​of the Russian World, and at the same time, in real life they are guided by the values ​​of the global world.}

Why do the majority of the population of de facto states often have a negative attitude towards their leaders? Everything is very simple, every day people listen to fables about the Russian world and immediately see the ordinary life of these politicians, with expensive cars, restaurants, trips abroad... against the backdrop of not life, but survival...

At the same time, all the bright and significant politicians of de facto states had or have contacts with representatives of Western organizations (after all, getting such a contact for a Western NGO is the main result of the work). And as a result, due to the fact that the values ​​of many representatives of the elite and NGOs coincide, the opportunity for manipulation and influence arises.

The most problematic group in de facto states, which can become the support of a “color revolution,” are officials. Most often, these are people with low salaries, average social status and without much prospects for changing their lives for the better. Constant leaks of sensitive information are the work of mid-level officials. The involvement of representatives of this group in the networks of Western NGOs is very significant and the most important thing is that this group has a very developed critical perception of what is happening in the territories in which they live, since they know it from the inside.

Public organizations in de facto states are traditionally affiliated with the authorities, but this does not prevent them from interacting with a number of foreign NGOs with similar topics of activity. For example, what is wrong with interacting with Doctors Without Borders? Or with organizations promoting gender equality? But as we know from the events in Ukraine, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Kazakhstan - all these are links in one chain.

_{And another plane of influence is ordinary people, the population of the territories. For the most part, these people are naturally not politically and socially active, but at the same time they are extremely critical of the social stratification of society, the mankurtism of political elites, and the situation in the region as a whole. These people will not go to the barricades to overthrow the government, but they will also not go to defend it.}

There is also an area related to the power structures of de facto states, but being objects that are completely closed to analysis, one can assume that there are not so many problems with them.

A superficial analysis of trends in the societies of de facto states leads to the conclusion that these formations are potentially vulnerable to “color revolutions” and can be used by Russia’s opponents as an effective mechanism of influence.

We have identified the problem, now the only thing left to do is to quickly resolve it.