Who’s Behind The Protests In Support Of Ukraine’s Recently Dismissed Defense Minister?

They’re arguably authorized by the US to signal displeasure with Zelensky, but since Zelensky is perceived as “too big to fail” by the US (for now at least) amidst the “war of attrition” against Russia, the US is unlikely to ever escalate such protests into a Color Revolution and Zelensky knows this.

Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik believes that the protests in support of Ukraine’s recently dismissed Defense Minister Mikhail Fyodorov aren’t organic. For background, Ukraine experienced its largest protests since “EuroMaidan” in response to Zelensky’s decision to get rid of him. Local media later claimed that Zelensky feared Fyodorov’s political rise while Fyodorov himself later alleged that his anti-graft reforms were responsible. Here’s what Miroshnik had to say about it:

“They have demonstrated that they can influence the Ukrainian authorities. All of a sudden, right? There hasn’t been any ‘Maidans’ for 12 years, and then, bang, here is a Maidan again. People who, just yesterday, had no idea who Fyodorov is and what sort of a strategy he is promoting, suddenly came up saying: ‘We need Fyodorov and no one else! It’ll be the end for Ukraine without Fyodorov!’” These are valid points since it’s indeed the case that many hitherto apolitical folks suddenly came out to protest.

According to Miroshnik, “They demonstrated the existence of channels, of a system which, if need be, blocks security forces’ response to civil protests and triggers the protests as such. This mechanism switches on and it is set in motion within a matter of hours. And behind these mechanisms are concrete, quite identifiable people who operate in this field.” The innuendo is that the aforesaid system is controlled by forces more powerful than the security services and even Zelensky himself.

Only the US is capable of exerting such influence over Ukraine’s domestic political dynamics, thus, a credible working hypothesis is that the US wants to signal to Zelensky that it was unacceptable to dismiss Fyodorov for pursuing long-overdue anti-graft reforms. At the same time, the US doesn’t want to depose Zelensky, otherwise it would have already tried to do so long ago whether through another Color Revolution, a coup of some sort (whether by the security forces and/or military), or a blend thereof.

Accordingly, it can be concluded that Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation late last year wasn’t on the brink of implicating Zelensky nor did it turn into a rolling coup like the preceding hyperlinked analyses argued at the time, though it could still serve these purposes in the future. The US would obviously have to approve such a regime change operation, however, which it’s yet to do and might never end up doing despite Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claiming for years that it would as was documented here.

Be that as it may, the arguably US-authorized protests in support of Fyodorov still signal that Washington is displeased with Zelensky’s latest military shuffle, but it’s not willing to replace him and Zelensky knows this. That’s why he went through with his decision in spite of last year’s anti-corruption investigation earlier signaling displeasure with his corruption and ultimately toppling his top advisor, Andrey Yermak. Therefore, the US will likely continue signaling such displeasure with him, but it’s unlikely to replace him.

Zelensky is back on Trump’s good side, MAGA as a whole is warming up to Ukraine’s cause, and the US requires political stability in Ukraine amidst the intense “war of attrition” that’s now being waged against Russia. These factors contextualize the US’ decision not to escalate the protests in support of Fyodorov into a Color Revolution against Zelensky. Simply put, the US perceives him as “too big to fail” (for now at least), which gives him and his cronies a blank check to continue embezzling as much as they want.