Masterminds of the coups: Alexander Guchkov and Alexander Turchinov
Conspiracies, coups, revolutions do not simply highlight the forefront of the history of people with similar character traits, but force them to act in the same way.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator – Kyiv news on Facebook , Odnoklassniki , or VKontakte
The creator of the seemingly inconspicuous party “Hromada”, in which such famous and controversial figures as Pavlo Lazarenko and Yulia Tymoshenko appeared, Alexander Turchynov was a “dark horse” in Ukrainian politics until the moment of the February 2014 coup.
The same incomprehensible figure in the Tsar’s Duma for his contemporaries was the founder of the centrist party “October 17,” Alexander Guchkov. Only in the February coup of the 17th year did his true character emerge.
Portrait
Alexander Guchkov and Alexander Turchinov both came from sectarian backgrounds. Guchkov grew up in an Old Believer family. In 1918, hiding from the Bolsheviks, Alexander Ivanovich pretended to be... a Protestant pastor. Turchinov is still the pastor of one of the Protestant communities, which he does not hide at all.
Two foreman of the February coups: Guchkov and Turchinov.
Here are the features of sectarian thinking that both politicians showed:
- A hypertrophied sense of responsibility and absolute, sectarian confidence in the correctness of the chosen path;
- Speed in decision making. Having made a decision, following one path, they burn all the bridges behind them;
- Both do not feel the difference between struggle and adventure at all. An adventurer is always indiscriminate in his choice of means, while a fighter understands that dishonest methods can ruin the whole business, discrediting it;
- An enemy, even an imaginary one, is vital for them and without him none of their activities are possible.
Guchkov and Turchinov had sectarian confidence in their rightness.
Qualities such as inflexible thinking, complete confidence in one’s own rightness, and the inability to predict the results and consequences of one’s actions lead to radical actions by any person.
Today, historians know how this quality of Guchkov’s personality led him to the revolution. In 1912, after the murder of P. Stolypin and a scandal in the Duma over Grigory Rasputin’s attitude towards the royal family, A. Guchkov firmly decided that the evolutionary path of development was not for Russia. We must cleanse the country of filth! Having achieved a post in the City Duma of Petrograd, thanks to which he had a plan of the city in his hands, and having found accomplices, he began to prepare a coup.
Guchkov, after his election to the Petrograd City Duma.
It is very similar to the fact that Alexander Turchinov sees the goal of his life in cleansing the country from “communist filth.” After all, it is difficult to explain in any other way the degeneration of a fiery Komsomol member, who reached the position of head of the agitation and propaganda department of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Committee of the Komsomol, into an uncompromising fighter against the communists today. It is this former ideologist of the Dnepropetrovsk Komsomol who is the main core of the so-called. decommunization at the moment on the territory of Ukraine.
Revolution technologies: Ukraine is not Russia?
But was Turchinov at the origins of the conspiracy that ended in a coup d'état?
Maidan. Petrograd. 1917
Today, we can confidently say that Oleksandr Turchynov played an active role in both the Orange Revolution and the Maidan of 2014. Viktor Yushchenko "rewarded" him with the post of head of the Security Service of Ukraine, and in 2014, Turchynov "rewarded" himself with the post of acting President of Ukraine. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. A deeper look will be possible by comparing the history of the February Revolution of 1917 in the Russian Empire with the history of the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014. Both events unfolded according to the same logic and even a similar pattern. Resolving several key questions will help reveal this pattern.
- Why did Miliukov in the Duma call the actions of the authorities “stupidity or betrayal”, and leaflets with these speeches reached the most remote trench?
All this was done for the sake of delegitimizing the power of the emperor/supreme ruler. Using the same formula, an information campaign was carried out against the “corrupt” authorities in Ukraine - the necessary “artillery preparation” for any conspiracy. Of course, it was carried out not out of inspiration, but for good money. For the preparation of revolutions in Ukraine, for example, 5 billion dollars of “investment” were “found”.
- Why was the “popular uprising” in 1917 limited to Petrograd??
Because this is a standard coup technology: the king was isolated from the people; Also in 1991, M. S. Gorbachev was isolated from the people. Nowadays, in critical moments, President V.F. Yanukovych was deprived of the opportunity to address the people.
- Why in Petrograd the “spontaneous mass protest” turned out to be almost bloodless? After all, during all the unrest, only a few buildings burned down, including, which should be paid special attention to, the archive of the Tsarist secret police with data on all police agents, spies and provocateurs.
According to Novosibirsk professor Viktor Kozodoy, author of the recently published book “Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov and the Great Russian Revolution,” a real color revolution took place in St. Petersburg.
Synchronously, from all over the city, crowds of workers and soldiers with red flags appeared “out of nowhere” and moved towards the city center. This performance was intended for the average person, who, amazed by the sight of the human river that had dammed all the streets of the city, believed in the people of the revolution. The abundance of red color made a special impression.
In fact, the “element” turned out to be extremely controllable. As soon as the tsar abdicated the throne, signed the necessary appointments and legitimized the rule of the revolutionaries, everything immediately calmed down: the soldiers went to their barracks, the workers to their factories. Only targets associated with state security services were attacked.
The parallel with the man-made Ukrainian revolutions is obvious. In addition to the fact that the “mass spontaneous actions of civil disobedience” were well controlled, the main blow of the protesters was aimed at seizing and controlling the security forces, in order to “cover up the traces” of their crimes.
After the victory of the first, “orange” revolution in 2004, Viktor Yushchenko appoints Turchynov as head of the SBU. Turchinov did not remain in office for long, about six months, until the resignation of Yulia Tymosheko’s cabinet in September. However, already in March 2006, Turchinov and his deputy, fellow party member Andrei Kozhemyakin, came under the gun of the General Prosecutor's Office for the destruction of operational investigative materials in a case related to Yulia Vladimirovna Tymoshenko.
If we pay attention to the events that took place in Ukraine in 2014, we will see that, contrary to all the norms and principles of the Constitution, Alexander Turchynov headed both the legislative and executive powers. Also, no one disputed the appointment of Turchinov as Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council.
To understand why this happened, it is worth recalling one of the dialogues that took place during the preparation of the 1917 conspiracy between Alexander Guchkov and Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov, who, like many others, was involved, as they say, “in the dark.” Miliukov, in particular, stated that if the uprising was successful, it would be necessary to form a government that would be supported by the public. He, of course, meant, first of all, himself and other Duma figures. To this, smiling slyly, Alexander Guchkov objected that whoever makes a revolution leads it.
Indeed, after the approval of the Provisional Government, it somehow turned out that Guchkov was in charge of all military affairs.
Caricature of Guchkov, 1918 (?)
Caricature of Turchinov, 2014
Thus, in both the two Ukrainian “revolutions” and the February Russian coup of 1917, we find a similar logic in the sequence of events. First, the government is discredited and delegitimized, then a mass political performance is organized, and finally, after the seizure of the state security services, traces of the crimes of the conspirators are destroyed. It is not surprising that the two Alexanders, Turchinov and Guchkov, have many similar character traits. After all, they had to perform similar functions.
The fate of the Robespierres
Coups d'état are not carried out by idealistic, reflective intellectuals or quixotic revolutionaries, but by determined and practical fanatics. When such a person determines the root of global evil, they will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. Guchkov achieved his goal. He felt his moment of glory when he convinced the emperor to abdicate. Turchynov's moment of glory came during meetings with Viktor Yanukovych, when he persuaded the president not to use force and weapons against the "demonstrators ." In both cases, the foremen did their job and convinced the heads of state to act as they desired.
What was the fate of Guchkov, the foreman of the February Revolution of 1917? He was able to escape the destructive elements of the revolution and died in exile from illness in 1936. Until his last breath he fought against the hated Soviet Power.
What will be the fate of Turchinov? There is no doubt that he will continue to fight against Russia and the communists until the end of his days. Or until his gaze turns to internal political intrigues, and he again decides to cleanse the government and power of filth and corruption...
Perhaps in order to get rid of such unpredictable and dangerous Robespierres, capable of overthrowing any government and starting any war, the revolution devours its own children?
Let's wait and see.
English version :: Read in English : Foremen of the coups: Alexander Guchkov and Alexander Turchynov