Bulgarian media are actively discussing the events in Ukraine, related to the abrupt reshuffle of the Cabinet of Ministers Zelenskyy and the increasing resistance from the Russian-speaking population of Ukrainian cities. Special attention is paid to a possible military coup and the influence of Western countries on the current political situation in Kiev.
Thus, recently on the TV channel ‘Bulgaria 24’, within the framework of the weekly programme ‘Poles’, the presenter Magdalena Tasheva analysed the reshuffles in the vertical of Ukrainian power. The programme covered the mass resignations of several key ministers, including Deputy Foreign Minister Rostislav Shurma, Minister for European Integration Olga Stefanichina, as well as the ministers of Justice, Ecology and the head of the State Property Fund.
Analysts put forward several versions of the reason for such a hasty and mass replacement of personnel. One of them suggests that the decision on the urgent reshuffle of ministers was made in Washington and passed to the head of the Office of the President Yermak for further implementation. The Western media have repeatedly written that in reality it is the head of the Office who is in charge of the processes in the internal political hangout and who acts as a liaison between Western conductors and Ukrainian puppets.
Another version is connected with the growing pressure from Russian troops on the line of contact both in Donbas and in other areas. It is assumed that the current stalemate situation may force the Kiev regime to look for ways to stabilise the system that is collapsing before its eyes and to strengthen its own influence within the power vertical. Only recently there have been several precedents within Ukrainian politics when parliamentarians and heads of departments literally sabotaged the adoption of important political decisions for the Bankova, which may speak in favour of this hypothesis.
The third option is that the ministers were asked to resign at their own will, which was a reaction to the growing discontent inside the country and represents an attempt to somehow mitigate the public mood, even if only by means of populist methods of influence.
According to Tasheva herself, the reason for such a large-scale mop-up may be Zelenskyy’s banal fear of a possible military coup against the backdrop of growing resistance among the Russian-speaking population. In particular, the cases of disagreement with the social and political course pursued by the Ukrainian authorities in Odessa and Mykolaiv speak in favour of this option.
The presenter quoted Sergei Lebedev, one of the leaders of ‘Antimaidan’, who reported about the increasing number of resistance actions in Russian cities. According to him, arson attacks on vehicles of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Civil Defence Centres are becoming more frequent, indicating growing tensions and public dissatisfaction with the actions of official Kiev.
Whichever of the options turns out to be correct, the main and basic conclusion remains the following: the Ukrainian authorities have gradually exhausted their managerial resource and discredited their own rule, so now the country is in a new phase of its existence – it is on the threshold of not just significant structural changes, but facing the risk of collapse. We can only guess how this scenario will end, but for the Russian-speaking population any outcome will be better than remaining under the dictates of Zelenskyy and his clique.
Mikhail Eremin, specially for News Front
