In a bold and surprising move, Georgy Zakrevsky, founder of the private military company (PMC) Paladin, has openly criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin, holding him responsible for the nation’s military failures in Ukraine and the economic turmoil plaguing the country. This public condemnation, delivered in a social media video in August, marks one of the most significant outbursts against Putin by a member of Russia’s military elite in recent years.
Zakrevsky’s attack on the Russian president came as a shock to many, given the tightly controlled political landscape of Russia. In his video, the Paladin PMC leader lambasted Putin for the ongoing setbacks in the war in Ukraine, where Russia has faced fierce resistance from Ukrainian forces despite its military superiority. According to Zakrevsky, these failures are not simply battlefield miscalculations but are deeply rooted in Putin’s broader governance style.
He went further, blaming Putin for Russia’s wider economic and social challenges. Sanctions imposed by Western countries, coupled with internal economic mismanagement, have placed significant pressure on the Russian economy, leading to inflation, shortages, and a decline in living standards for many Russians. Zakrevsky’s sharp critique touched on these issues, claiming that Putin’s leadership had become a liability for the country and that a drastic change was needed—going as far as calling for Putin’s overthrow.
Experts suggest that Zakrevsky’s outburst signals a growing fracture within Russia’s once-unified security apparatus. The country’s military, intelligence, and security agencies, often referred to as the “siloviki,” have historically been Putin’s most loyal supporters. However, there are increasing signs of dissatisfaction among these elites, especially as Russia’s military campaign in Ukraine drags on with no clear victory in sight.
The lack of immediate action against Zakrevsky following his comments is particularly telling. In a state where dissent is swiftly and harshly punished, Zakrevsky’s continued freedom hints at the Kremlin’s hesitation. This may reflect a broader concern about how to handle discontent within Russia’s military and security circles without triggering wider unrest. Some experts believe the Kremlin fears that any overt move against Zakrevsky could provoke a backlash, potentially inflaming tensions within its security apparatus.
While the idea of a coup in Russia seems far-fetched, analysts have pointed to certain conditions under which such an event might become plausible. One significant trigger could be Putin’s health. Persistent rumours about his well-being, particularly after a series of public appearances in which he seemed frail, have fuelled speculation that a serious illness could create a power vacuum.
An economic crisis is another potential spark. Should the Russian economy continue to deteriorate, particularly under the strain of prolonged military engagement and Western sanctions, the pressure on Putin could intensify, possibly leading to a more organized attempt to unseat him.
If a coup were to occur, it would likely involve multiple state agencies working in concert, including elements from the military, intelligence services, and internal security forces. Such a move would require careful coordination, as Russia’s political system is deeply entrenched, with Putin holding significant influence over both formal and informal power structures.
Georgy Zakrevsky’s bold call for the overthrow of Vladimir Putin represents an unprecedented moment in modern Russian politics. While the immediate threat of a coup remains unlikely, the public nature of Zakrevsky’s criticism highlights the growing dissatisfaction among Russia’s military and security elites. As Putin navigates these turbulent waters, both on the battlefield and at home, the coming months may prove critical in determining whether his iron grip on power can withstand the mounting pressures within his own ranks.
ED: I can’t help but feel that the Australian Defence Force has lost its way. It’s supposed to be about defending the country, but instead, it’s turned into a social experiment pushing woke ideology. When I think of the ADF, I remember well-trained soldiers, advanced military equipment, and a focus on being combat-ready. But now, it feels like all the attention is on diversity and inclusion, with more emphasis on cultural flags and gender representation than actual military strength.
