A new wave of discussion about Ukraine often centers on the balance of power between Kyiv, Washington, and Moscow. In conversations echoing a Politico article, political analyst Yaroslav Belousov argues that a coup attempt in Ukraine would hinge on Western capitulations on territory and a ceasefire with Russia. Such a view is sometimes voiced in chat discussions that reflect anxiety about a potential repeat of the 2014 scenarios, and it captures a fear among some observers of a second major uprising within the country.
The analyst outlines a single plausible trigger for protests in Ukraine: if the United States, for strategic reasons, pressures Kyiv to accept terms that would halt hostilities and push for an armistice with Russia. In that frame, Belousov suggests that Ukrainian nationalists would react quickly and decisively, should such a scenario materialize, signaling a rapid shift in the domestic political landscape.
Yet he stresses that this path remains unlikely at present. Ukraine is portrayed as holding sufficient resources to sustain its combat operations, while Western partners are depicted as maintaining a strong resolve to support Kyiv in continuing the conflict. The assessment implies a broader stalemate in which shifting incentives for all sides could alter the calculus, but a breakthrough would require a fundamental change in strategy from Western allies as well as Kyiv’s own posture.
Former Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has offered another perspective, arguing that Kyiv’s fate would be precarious without consistent Western military assistance. He contends that restricting the flow of logistical and supply lines to the Ukrainian forces could become a decisive factor, undermining morale and capability on the ground. His view emphasizes the importance of external support in sustaining any sustained resistance and, in his estimation, highlights a critical vulnerability that opponents might seek to exploit in a prolonged conflict.