Putin Could Lose Power, a Coup in Russia, and Attacks on Oil Refineries

Donald Trump continues to promote his own scenarios for ending the war, Russia suffers losses on the front, and strikes on its oil refineries create more and more problems for the economy. At the same time, a separate confrontation is unfolding in space, which directly affects Ukrainian military intelligence.

Adv

Trump's tactics and US support for Ukraine

Volodymyr Zelenskyy claims that the US is holding up critical supplies. What do you think Trump is trying to achieve by doing this? Does he want to close the Russian-Ukrainian issue with our surrender, or is there something less obvious here?

Trump always acts from the position of a strong player. He puts pressure on his opponent or interlocutor at the negotiating table, testing his resilience. This is his usual tactic, there is nothing new here. He has repeatedly used it, including with regard to Zelensky.

Many believed that after the scandal in the White House in February 2025, relations between Trump and Zelensky would never be restored. But everything turned out to be completely different.

Zelensky knows how to build relationships with Trump and other difficult world leaders. He succeeds, so I wouldn't put an end to the current relationship.

Trump has said nothing new. He always blames European partners, opponents, and allies, trying to get the desired result from them.

As for the current situation, US support is critical for Ukraine, particularly in exchange of intelligence and arms supplies. Delays in supplies and intelligence sharing have occurred before, but support has been restored. After all, the strategic interests of Ukraine and the United States coincide.

Trump certainly doesn't want Putin or Russia to win. But he may not want Russia to lose badly either, because he believes that would inevitably lead to a stronger China. And he has every right to do so.

Trump may change his strategy, increase pressure on Moscow or on us, but he acts based on what Marco Rubio said: America is always guided by its own national interests.

It is also important to remember that there is a strong majority in both houses of Congress in support of Ukraine. Polls show that the level of support for Ukraine among Americans is consistently at least 70%.

Zelensky's video call with representatives of both parties in the Senate on Tuesday, October 20, clearly demonstrated that we maintain our support. Democrats and Republicans have ample opportunities to pressure the White House.

In particular, the White House is now seeking to increase the overall military budget by $350 billion – not just for aid to Ukraine, but for defense in general. American congressmen have already warned: if aid to Ukraine is not restored, they may block the Pentagon’s new military budget. And then the problems for the White House will be much more serious.

So, despite Trump's current steps, shouldn't we throw ashes on our heads?

Absolutely. We have experienced such peaks and falls many times. This is the signature style of the current US president. He always acts this way.

I will repeat once again: no matter how much someone wants to criticize, we must proceed from the fact that this is the leader of the most powerful superpower in the world, the person on whom our fate depends. Civilians can afford to play around by criticizing the actions of this administration. Diplomats and military personnel certainly cannot.

Full conversation with a military man: watch the video

Russia's space aggression and threats to satellites

Let's talk about Russia's actions. Recently, a Russian satellite came within 26 meters of a Finnish-American satellite that shares intelligence with Ukraine. What do you think this incident indicates?

Star Wars fans should understand that sooner or later war will break out in space. A Russian military satellite has come within a critically dangerous distance of a satellite operated by the Finnish company ICEYE, which collects intelligence important to the Ukrainian Defense Forces, including images of enemy military facilities.

In essence, this is an act of cosmic aggression. The fact that a collision did not occur at such a short distance is a true miracle.

The distance between satellites less than a kilometer is already considered dangerous. And here we could observe an attempt to ram, intimidation or something else. At the same time, there are international treaties that regulate activities in space. Such behavior can be considered an act of aggression.

Recall that a Russian military satellite came within 26 meters of a Finnish company's ICEYE satellite, which helps Ukraine receive intelligence on Russian military facilities. Due to the dangerous proximity, the device was forced to use additional engines to avoid a collision, which could have led to the consumption of fuel reserves.

The Russians clearly understand the risks they have avoided. Not only the potential financial liability, but also the consequences of attacking a satellite linked to a NATO country. I have no doubt that they acted intentionally.

Russia is raising the stakes every time. If it is not stopped and if there is no tangible response, it will move to the next level of escalation. Therefore, we must respond.

Russia is trying to hinder everything that works well for Ukraine. Europe is helping - Europe needs to be destabilized. Ukraine is receiving satellite images and intelligence - satellites need to be influenced. Experts also suggest that the purpose of such maneuvers may be a demonstration of force and a new form of orbital confrontation. In particular, a satellite can be forced to spend fuel on evasion, gradually depleting its resources. That is, in order to cause damage, it is not necessary to arrange a direct collision?

The satellite was forced to use additional engines to avoid a collision. That was the goal. This once again emphasizes the hostile nature of Russia's actions - purposeful and deliberate. This is a new level of hybrid threat, and now we need to prepare for the fact that something similar will happen in space.

I repeat: "Star Wars" is not just the name of a Hollywood movie, but also the real danger posed by Russia. It is necessary to clearly understand that Russia today is a dangerous state, a terrorist state, for which there are no laws and rules for waging war. It is ready to start wars everywhere: on land, in the sky, on water, under water and in space. Therefore, it is necessary to respond harshly.

If we are talking about invading airspace, then it is necessary to destroy Russian air targets, not to mess with them and not to wait for them to fall or self-destruct.

After all, they can hit a civilian, military or any other object. As for space, a satellite has no means of attack – it has no missiles or machine guns, it can only dodge. But there are combat satellites, there are possibilities of using lasers.

After all, you can blind an enemy satellite or damage its optics. If it gets too close, you should first warn it through official channels. If the warning is ignored, then, in my opinion, you can point a laser and literally burn its eyes out. And that's it, goodbye. Let it fly on.

Satellite reconnaissance, Starshield and the role of Europe

How do you assess the level of threat if Russia accelerates the development of the "Rassvet" system, which will allow controlling the "Shaheds" over the territory of Ukraine in real time?

Everything Russia does is aimed at improving its war tactics. There is no need to be ironic about the fact that they recently deorbited two satellites and perceive this as an isolated incident. In general, Russia is working to make this system effective.

Of course, technologically it will not be able to catch up with SpaceX, in particular Starlink or its military version Starshield. But for Russia it will be an alternative that does not exist at the moment. Such a system will strengthen the capabilities of the Russian army, and it will try to actively use it.

By the way, Russia is developing the "Rassvet" satellite system - its own analogue of Starlink, which can provide the Russian military with secure communications and the ability to control strike and reconnaissance drones in real time. According to the assessment of the Ukrainian President's Advisor on Defense Technologies, Sergey "Flash" Beskrestnov, full coverage of the territory of Ukraine may appear in about six months. Currently, the system is at the deployment and testing stage, and hundreds of satellites are needed for stable 24-hour communication.

Ukraine does not have its own capabilities to launch satellites, so it uses satellites from partner countries that are already in orbit, and also receives intelligence data from allies. At the same time, as stated by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, two-thirds of intelligence data for the Armed Forces of Ukraine comes from Europeans, primarily France.

That is, our dependence on American intelligence is no longer so critical. The only area in which the United States can provide unique information that other partners cannot currently provide is early warning of a ballistic threat.

When the last three ballistic attacks took place, the Americans did not send appropriate warnings, and we did not see the moment the missiles were launched. This was stated by the President of Ukraine. So far, this problem has not been resolved.

Allies, particularly European countries, should develop their own missile defense and early warning systems for ballistic launches so that Ukraine is not dependent solely on the United States.

How soon will Ukraine be able to fully switch to the European satellite system? According to Reuters, the White House allegedly ordered the restriction of Starshield's operation in Ukraine.

I cannot comment on this. These are journalistic investigations that have their own sources. Officially, the White House stated that it was not involved in this story. We must rely on official sources. As for the European system, we will be able to use it only after it is launched, tested and adjusted.

In any case, it is a matter of years, not months. Creating a system similar to Starshield requires huge investments, appropriate technologies, and, most importantly, the production of hundreds of satellites. We are not talking about dozens of devices.

Will Europe be able to fully replace the US in terms of intelligence and satellite capabilities?

As I mentioned, two-thirds of our intelligence comes from the Europeans. The only area where the Americans provide unique information is ballistic missile threat warnings.

Europe has already replaced the United States in terms of intelligence, or rather, has largely compensated for its lack. However, Ukraine continues to critically need important intelligence from its American partners.

What Putin is counting on and how Russia is shaking up Europe

Putin is continuing the war. Do you think he still believes in his victory or is he continuing the fighting for other reasons?

A war can end with a peace or other agreement that fixes its end in several cases. The first is when one of the countries suffers a catastrophic defeat and the other wins a decisive victory. This did not happen.

The second reason is the depletion of resources on both sides to the point where they are no longer able to continue fighting. An example is the Iran-Iraq War, which claimed the lives of over two million soldiers and civilians. It ended, in part, because the sides were no longer able to continue fighting.

The third option is the intervention of powerful states that can influence the participants in the conflict if its continuation poses a serious threat to their trade, economy, or other interests.

In the case of Russia, such a country can only be China. At the moment, Beijing is not interested in ending the war, because it weakens not only Ukraine, but also Russia and Europe. Strategically, China benefits from this. It sells its technologies and components to the warring parties, primarily Russia.

At the same time, Beijing is strengthening its own positions and increasing its influence as a state capable of putting pressure on Putin. Therefore, China does not seek to end the war. The question is when Beijing will assess the risks and understand that further continuation of hostilities is simply not profitable for it, primarily from the point of view of trade and national interests.

I think several factors must come together: the resources of the parties will be exhausted, and external players will be able to put pressure on the Kremlin. This could lead to the end of the war.

What is Putin counting on most today – the exhaustion of Ukraine, the division of the West, or his own military breakthrough?

I will start with the recent events in France and a number of other European countries. Mass protests and serious social conflicts, spanning political and religious spheres, have caused a security crisis in a number of European countries. All this leads to the growth of the popularity of right-wing and far-right parties, which are striving to come to power in elections, primarily in Germany and France, but also in other European countries.

This certainly plays into Moscow and Beijing's hands, as the coming to power of the far-right could mean a break in relations with Ukraine and an aggravation of internal contradictions in the European Union and NATO. Many far-rightists are demanding an exit not only from the EU, but also from NATO, or at least a restriction on their countries' participation in the Alliance.

Of course, this will seriously weaken European security. Putin is certainly interested in inciting such sentiments and is making efforts to do so. In particular, this was facilitated by the resources of data centers in Russia, which have now been damaged. I mean the data centers of Yandex.

They have boosted support for far-right parties on social media and the internet in general. Putin has invested huge amounts of money in stoking controversy, anti-immigrant, anti-Ukrainian, and anti-European sentiment.

He will continue to try to undermine Ukraine's support. Putin hopes that sooner or later it will cease or become insignificant, and Ukraine will simply not have the resources to continue the war. This is how he expects to achieve the desired result. This is his main plan.

Russian sabotage also contributed to fueling support for far-right forces in Europe, particularly on the eve of the elections in Germany.

Russia has carried out sabotage operations in many EU countries and beyond, including the UK. These included bombings and assassination attempts on defense company executives, including in Bulgaria. Numerous acts of sabotage have been carried out in Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia.

The Russians will try to expand this activity. It is part of the hybrid war that Putin is sparing no resources for, even after the war against Ukraine is over. Having seen the mass protests and demonstrations by leftist movements and students in Europe, he will invest additional funds in supporting them and inflaming conflicts.

Putin sees this as an opportunity to destabilize the situation from within so that European countries will ultimately have neither the time, nor the desire, nor the funds to help Ukraine.

It turns out that Putin is simultaneously playing into the hands of the far-right and the far-left, that is, extreme political camps. Can such marginal forces become part of national politics?

You are referring to the speech by Alice Weidel, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Unfortunately, there is a possibility of such statements, as the rapid rise in popularity of the AfD in Germany has already led to the party winning the state elections in Saxony - so far the first, but unfortunately not the last, federal state.

I say "unfortunately" because the AfD's rise to power poses a problem not only for Ukraine, but for the entire European project. It could threaten Germany's exit from the European Union, as AfD voters overwhelmingly support limiting the country's participation in the union or even leaving it altogether.

I do not exclude the development of events according to the British scenario. True, British voters have already regretted the decision to leave the EU. Brexit cost the country too much: the British economy lost more than it gained. This was also a consequence of the popularity of the far-right forces in the UK, which pushed the country towards such a scenario. We see how it all ended.

Will this stop Germans from leaving the EU and the associated losses? I don't think so. The flywheel of hatred is already very much in motion. It must be admitted that the AfD works well with electoral technology.

The Saxony elections showed how skillfully the party's political technologists have used social media, primarily Threads, TikTok, and Instagram, to attract young people and expand their electoral base. This has paid off. The AfD has a fresh and trendy image, unlike the traditional parties that many Germans are already tired of.

The AfD is now skillfully working with public opinion. This is the result of the work of pollsters - sociologists who correctly select messages in accordance with the mood and wishes of German voters. In my opinion, the AfD's coming to power now looks almost inevitable. I also do not rule out the victory of Marine Le Pen in France.

I say this with regret, because then everyone will have problems, and very serious ones.

Will this trend scale, that is, will it not fade away, but rather spread?

It's like a forest fire. First, the fire broke out in one place, it could not be contained, and now it is growing out of control. All these left-wing movements, combined with extremist groups of migrants united by religious views, can sooner or later lead to serious consequences. This is an extremely explosive mixture.

Many ordinary, decent Europeans, who can be called bourgeois, will not look for a way out for long in the face of all this. They will seek salvation, because for them it is a matter of security, business, and physical survival.

All these images, shown in the media and shared on social networks, create a sense of danger. People may get the impression that Europe is returning to the 1930s. Let's remember the fires and pogroms of that time, including Kristallnacht in Germany and the terrible crimes against the Jewish population.

These historical memories and fears are still alive. Paradoxically, they may once again contribute to the rise of the far right to power.

I do not draw a direct parallel between the AfD and the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP). Some may do so, but I do not. At the same time, the AfD has various representatives, including very toxic ones, with Nazi-oriented views. The party itself is heterogeneous.

If we recall the NSDAP, at the beginning it was also not united in its views, there were different trends within it. The name "National Socialist German Workers' Party" reflected the fact that among its first voters there were many poor citizens, ordinary workers.

Some of them supported the communists and socialists, others the Nazis. That is, the electoral base could be similar, but the political choices were different. When voters lean towards extreme political forces – the far left or the far right – the reasons are often the same. Usually it is a crisis that subsequently leads to social division and stratification.

Therefore, the current situation in Germany is somewhat reminiscent of the events of the 1920s and 1930s, and this is extremely dangerous. I will emphasize once again: there is currently no reason to equate the AfD and the NSDAP. These are different historical eras, and Weidel is clearly not a figure on the level of Adolf Hitler. But it is not known what other leaders or even Fuhrers may appear in the Alternative for Germany environment.

The new drone war and what is the situation on the front

We talked about foreign policy factors that influence the Russian-Ukrainian war. Now I would like to talk about the front. We see that the Ukrainian army has tactical successes, although we understand that Russia has a resource advantage. What is preventing us today from turning local successes into a strategic breakthrough?

First, to conduct strategic-level operations, a sufficient number of reserves is necessary. Currently, neither the Ukrainian Defense Forces nor our enemy have such reserves. A strategic breakthrough to a significant depth is possible with the presence of strategic reserves in the amount of approximately two armies.

That is, it is necessary to accumulate 250-300 thousand military personnel and have a sufficient concentration of firepower to defeat the enemy on a narrow section of the front. Fortunately, the enemy does not have such resources and is not expected to have them.

Therefore, the front has long since become quite static. The extremely successful Operation "Vivaldi", and I say this without exaggeration, was made possible by the coincidence of several factors.

Firstly, this is a tactical plan, implemented in such a way that the enemy knew nothing about the preparation of the operation.

Secondly, the Defense Forces had a high level of situational awareness thanks to high-quality intelligence - agent, aerial, as well as intelligence conducted by our scouts and units behind the front lines.

The surprise factor played an additional role: the enemy was misled about the direction of the main blow. He expected an attack in one place, but the blow was delivered in another.

This operation is likely an exception. It covered a fairly wide front and yielded significant results: territory was liberated and a large number of Russian soldiers were captured.

I don't remember hundreds of enemy soldiers being captured in a single operation for a long time. The last time this happened was probably during the Kharkiv offensive operation. Over the past four years, prisoners have been taken in groups, dozens, but not hundreds.

The most important thing is that the enemy was unable to react to our actions in time. I repeat, this is rather an exception. The nature of the war has changed so much that the supporting forces – fortifications, minefields – have become a serious obstacle to the offensive.

In addition, FPV drones are extremely effective. Therefore, traditional tactical methods of warfare of the 20th century, in particular mechanized assaults and the use of artillery and mortars, no longer give the same results as before. Even snipers on the front have practically ceased to be used as before.

Why? Because the sniper himself becomes a target. As soon as he steps into position to fire at a distance of up to two kilometers, sooner or later he is discovered. Even if he completes the task, he can be found, located and destroyed. Everything has changed.

Therefore, there is no strategic turning point, primarily due to the lack of reserves - neither ours nor the enemy's. At the same time, we control the situation locally. Putin stated that Russia occupied 6.5 thousand square kilometers of Ukrainian territory, although, according to my data, it is actually about 144 square kilometers. This is 45 times less.

This is the real result of Russian statements. Does Putin believe in his victory? Yes, he continues to believe, because the generals convince him of this. They assure him that they are able to achieve a strategic breakthrough, defeat the Armed Forces of Ukraine and reach the Dnieper along its entire length, and not just in the Kherson region.

After that, according to their plans, there should be a breakthrough or an amphibious operation on the right bank. That is, Putin is told that Russia is capable of winning. It is not just about capturing Donbass - he seeks to establish control over all of Ukraine without exception.

Given the new concept of war that you talked about, what is the enemy's advantage today, and in what ways is Ukraine ahead of him?

Now, a tactical equilibrium has actually been established on the front. As one high-ranking officer of the Armed Forces, whom I respect very much, says, innovations on the front last four days. We invent something new, the enemy quickly finds a countermeasure.

They are coming up with a new approach – we are looking for a way to neutralize it. The tactical balance is also maintained because the sky is virtually completely occupied by drones – both Ukrainian and Russian.

Electronic warfare means work effectively in some places, but do not give the desired result in others. The reason, again, is that drones are developing very quickly and switching to other frequencies. The only area in which the enemy still has an advantage is air attack means, in particular cruise and ballistic missiles.

Russia has more of these missiles and wider possibilities for their use for both pinpoint and large-scale strikes. We cannot carry out large-scale missile strikes because we do not have a sufficient supply of missiles. We can carry out several such attacks using Western and domestically produced missiles, but after that the reserves will run out.

Russia, on the other hand, has a constant production that allows it to regularly use missiles. This is one of the main advantages of the enemy. Another advantage is aviation.

Russia has significantly more bomber, fighter and attack aircraft than Ukraine. This is where we are inferior. In other components, in particular, land and naval forces, we have achieved a certain parity, and in some areas even superiority. At sea, we have managed to practically oust the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Approximately 30% of its ships are already at the bottom, and the rest are out of order or do not dare to go to sea.

Attacks on Russian refineries and the vulnerability of the Russian economy

Strikes on Russian refineries are a fairly effective lever of pressure in this war. The situation is not entirely clear now: how will Ukraine proceed in this direction? Has Russia been able to adapt to these strikes?

No, of course not. Otherwise, why would Putin want to pressure Trump to demand that Ukraine stop attacking Russian refineries? That's the answer. Russia has failed to adapt. Even when the Russians tighten their nets around their plants and tanks, it ultimately doesn't help.

Our military engineers have already found ways to bypass such primitive means of protection. The enemy has no way to fully protect his facilities, and will never have one in the future.

First, we have enough middle strike and deep strike airstrikes. Their production can not only be scaled up – it can be further increased.

Secondly, Russia does not have enough air defense systems to cover all its facilities. It produces a limited number of Pantsir-S1 systems, practically does not produce S-400 systems, and other air defense assets are scattered over a vast territory. As they say, where there is thinness, there is a break.

Russia's vast territory is not only its advantage, but also its Achilles' heel. It is not able to protect everything. It can concentrate its defense around individual objects, in particular the Crimean Bridge and Moscow. But, as we see, Ukrainian weapons of destruction are reaching there too.

The only question is whether it is appropriate to use the scarce cruise missiles. Such decisions are made by the Commander-in-Chief and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief's Headquarters. If they see a need for it, they act accordingly.

We have enough means to destroy critical infrastructure, in particular the Crimean Bridge. I am convinced that at the right moment the appropriate decision will be made.

Are these strikes and their continuation capable of breaking Putin's strategic calculations?

Of course. First, strikes on refineries reduce revenues to the Russian treasury. Second, the Russian economy has a resource imbalance: the country receives its main income from the sale of raw materials. Russia has not created anything exceptional that could replace these revenues. It sells oil, gas, and also stolen Ukrainian grain. Therefore, strikes on oil infrastructure weaken its economic capabilities.

In addition, it means less diesel fuel, gasoline and aviation kerosene for the Russian army. All this works to weaken Russia. At the same time, the strikes create a sense of instability among the population. Russians see that the so-called "SVO" has come to them too. All this significantly weakens the Kremlin.

When you say that Russians are feeling the effects of the so-called "SVO" at home, let's remember the recent events in St. Petersburg and Moscow, when air traffic was stopped at airports for hours, and sometimes for several days. Is this already part of Operation M&M's or something else?

Officially, no one called the operation that way - this is the name used by journalists. I don't know if it's M&M's, or Twix, or something else. The most important thing is the result. As they say, the result is on the scoreboard, in particular on the scoreboard of Moscow airports.

When you see the words "cancelled," "cancelled," "cancelled," "delayed," that's the result. We can do it, we're doing it, and we'll do it for as long as it takes. The President warned Russia about it. And we have no reason to refuse such actions.

Russia is destroying our energy system, which is supposed to prepare cities for winter. So why should we care about its problems, including the fact that Russians need to fly somewhere?

Russia is a huge country that cannot fully exist without aviation. This transport system was formed back in the days of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the problems with air transportation are very serious for it, and solving them is not easy. I will explain why.

Someone says that Russia has a huge territory, but where is the only federal highway that connects Moscow or Pskov with Vladivostok? There is none. There are separate sections of roads, and between them there are gaps, dirt roads and forest routes. You can travel across the entire country by rail, but such a journey can take a week, and the route will not always be direct.

Therefore, aviation is an extremely important component of the transport system for Russia. If its work is disrupted, not only passenger but also cargo transportation is disrupted. In fact, when the work of airfields and airports stops, the Russian transport system suffers a serious blow.

In addition, air traffic in Russia is structured in such a way that a significant part of the routes pass through Moscow or St. Petersburg.

Yes, and this system is often unprofitable. To get from one city to another, you sometimes have to first fly to Moscow, and from there to your destination. If the four Moscow airports or the airports of St. Petersburg stop working, the usual scheme stops working. This disrupts air connections between regions and creates problems for the entire transport system.

Scenarios until 2027 and the probability of a coup in Russia

At the end of our conversation, I outlined three potential scenarios for 2027: a turning point in Ukraine's favor, a protracted war of attrition, or a dangerous Russian success. Which one do you think is the most likely?

First, let me repeat: to end the war, certain conditions must be met. This can be either the defeat of one of the parties, or the complete exhaustion of its resources. Putin's main bet in the war against Ukraine is precisely on exhaustion.

Is Russia's depletion possible? Yes, if it loses the ability to sell its resources abroad, primarily hydrocarbons. This can happen for various reasons.

In addition, the end of the war in the Middle East could eventually lead to a fall in oil and gas prices, and therefore a significant reduction in Russian revenues. I do not believe in the rapid fall of the Kremlin regime. More precisely, as an analyst, I do not currently see the prerequisites for this.

This regime turned out to be much more stable than the Soviet one, in particular because it has no ideological restrictions. The Soviet Union collapsed, in particular because people saw: it is impossible to lie endlessly. You cannot promise the victory of communism endlessly when 99% of the population lives in poverty, and one percent has special rations and drives black "Volgas".

The current Russian government has combined the worst of the Soviet Union with new mechanisms of control. It is effectively a gangster Soviet state, built on lies, murder, and violence, but without the need to adhere to communist ideology.

At the same time, a system of total control, the scale of which exceeds even the capabilities of the former KGB, helps the regime to stay in power. However, the system itself remains vulnerable, as Prigozhin's rebellion and his march on Moscow demonstrated. Therefore, I would call the base scenario a possible coup with the participation of law enforcement agencies and the military.

It could become a reality if Russia suffers a serious military defeat or if it becomes obvious that prolonging the war only increases losses and does not bring the desired result closer.

Prigozhin showed the direction in which the scenario of the forcible dismantling of the current Russian state could develop. A military coup or even the removal of Putin by force does not seem inevitable now, but such events may become possible when Russia faces very serious, primarily economic, problems.

We should not forget about Russia's internal contradictions related to ideology, the national question, and religion. Xenophobia, hatred of other religions, and humiliation of representatives of other nationalities may also play a role sooner or later.

I wouldn't expect a quick collapse of Russia. Rather, it's a slow decay of the system that may eventually reach a bifurcation point - a moment when some explosion or crisis will trigger its collapse.

Whether this will happen quickly or slowly is another question. But, in my opinion, this process will last a long time, and its horizon can be measured in decades.

This interview has been shortened, corrected, and edited for better understanding by the audience.

"Putin Could Lose Power": An Interview with Berezovets on a Possible Coup, Attacks on Oil Refineries, and Russia's Problems

popular videos