What Next if Those in Power Just Won’t Step Down?

Source: Author’s Facebook page

A question is increasingly being asked in Ukraine—not by “radicals,” but by sober-minded people who read, calculate, analyse, and understand that war leaves no room for illusions.

After any fair criticism of the authorities, we often repeat the same formula: “if they don’t stop concentrating power,” “if they don’t stop stealing,” “if they don’t form a government of national salvation, we won’t survive.” Immediately, a tougher, more mature question arises: what if they don’t stop? What if “it doesn’t happen”? What is Plan B, beyond the mythologized “Maidan,” which in wartime could collapse the state faster than the enemy?

This is the right question. It moves us from emotional politics to real politics and gives us a chance to finally escape the childish trap of “either a miracle or a catastrophe.” Plan B exists—but it does not resemble a romantic scenario, nor can it fit on a poster. It is unpleasant because it requires discipline, time, and cold, rational thinking. It does not provide instant catharsis—but it does offer a chance to survive and rebuild the country without self-destruction.

Why “Maidan as a Universal Answer” Is a Dangerous Temptation

Let’s start with the truth: public protest is a tool. And it has been justified more than once in Ukrainian history. But war changes the fundamental physics of politics. In peacetime, a Maidan can shake up the government. In wartime, it can shake the state itself—disrupting governance, infrastructure, mobilization, logistics, and international support. We have no right to perform revolutionary rituals without understanding the consequences.

This does not mean “tolerating” wrongdoing. It means acting differently: not searching for a symbolic bonfire to burn, but removing the nails from the structure that holds up the vertical of corruption. Plan B is not “taking Bankova.” Plan B is about depriving Bankova of the capacity to govern the country as a private office.

Plan B Is the Reassembly of Subjectivity, Not the Expectation of Heroes

The biggest trap in Ukrainian politics is faith in a hero—“someone who will come and do it.” It is a convenient faith because it removes responsibility from each of us. Yet, this faith perpetuates cycles: society gives up power, becomes disappointed, explodes, and then gives up again—only to be handed a “strong hand” that turns against itself.

Plan B begins with rejecting this childish model. It begins with the understanding that if those at the top do not change voluntarily, the country must create alternative centers of agency—intellectual, organizational, personnel-based, and procedural. Not one “leader,” but a network capable of coordinated action.

Level One: Semantic—Not a Protest, but a Project

No real breakthrough occurs without answering the question, “What comes instead?” If we only know how to criticize, we are doomed to lose. The state will always be stronger in its apparatus but weaker in meaning; society, by contrast, is rich in meaning but poor in instruments.

That is why the first level of Plan B is a semantic framework and a concrete state project. The label is secondary: a government of national salvation, a government of national responsibility, an anti-crisis cabinet. The name is irrelevant.

What matters is that it articulates:

• what the principles of governance during wartime?

• how powers should be redistributed to prevent usurpation;

• which oversight institutions operate, and how;

• what a wartime economy looks like—one that does not siphon resources away from the front;

• what rules govern public procurement?

• how transparency can be ensured without paralyzing decision-making.

In my view, this project must not be utopian. It should be a technical, workable design—one that can be presented to international partners, local communities, and businesses. Only then does public pressure cease to be mere emotion and become a demand backed by a ready-made solution.

Level Two: Institutional—Remove the Supports, Not Tear Down the Roof

Power verticals are not built on charisma. They rest on very concrete pillars: access, financial flows, and control over security agencies, the media, the courts, and regulators. Plan B means systematic work aimed at weakening these pillars.

This includes bringing evidentiary materials into the public domain; creating independent monitoring mechanisms; international compliance and oversight procedures; linking funding and projects to clear transparency conditions; applying personal sanctions mechanisms; exerting reputational pressure on key actors; and narrowing the “grey zones” in procurement and decision-making.

Authorities are not afraid of slogans. They fear restrictions on resources and the erosion of external legitimacy. That is why, during wartime, the most effective pressure is often applied not in the streets, but through documents, conditions, audit reports, and international instruments that make corruption difficult, costly, and risky.

Level Three: Networked—Communities of Specialists as the State of the Future

Plan B involves building a network of competent professionals capable of taking responsibility for specific sectors. Not “everyone against everyone,” but communities able to negotiate and produce solutions in key areas: defence, the economy, energy, healthcare, education, local governance, and digital systems. This is a prototype of the future state—not a theatrical political coalition, but a functional, technological one.

Such networks matter for two reasons. First, they offer a credible alternative to propaganda. Second, they create a genuine кадровий reserve. Every historical turning point arrives suddenly, and when it does, the real problem is rarely how to remove those in power—it is the absence of people ready to replace them.

Level Four: Personnel—Preparing People for the Window of Opportunity

Windows of opportunity in politics are never planned. They open as a result of a crisis. War is a permanent crisis. That is why Plan B includes something Ukraine has traditionally neglected: systematic personnel preparation.

Not “elections as spectacle,” but the training of people who actually know how to govern. Not bloggers or loud agitators, but managers with experience, teams, programs, and a clear understanding of procedures. Plan B means having a ready personnel package—individuals and teams capable of entering government without chaos when the moment comes.

This is not romantic. It is hard, methodical work. But there is no alternative: a state cannot be rebuilt on emotion alone.

Level Five: Civil Action Without Self-Destruction

Public pressure is, of course, necessary. But that pressure must be rational. It must be organized. It must force the system to change—not push the country toward collapse. Protest may be part of it. There are campaigns, boycotts, or legal actions. Nevertheless, every form must respect one overriding principle: never hand the enemy a gift in the form of internal destabilization.

That is why the formula “hope lies only with students” is false. Students are an important indicator of a living society, but countries are not saved by age or slogans. Countries are saved by a mature coalition of responsibility—citizens, businesses, managers, professionals, and communities acting in coordination.

So, what to do if it “won’t stop”?

• Don’t wait until it “stops.”
• Build in parallel.
• Formulate a state project that can be shown.
• Remove the pillars of vertical corruption through procedures and international mechanisms.
• Gather networks of specialists and prepare a talent pool.
• Maintain civil pressure, but without state suicide.

This is Plan B. It’s not pretty. It doesn’t give a quick effect. But it’s the only one that reduces the risk: either we break the system without destroying the country, or the system breaks the country during the war.

And here it is crucial to state the main point: Plan B is not “action at some undefined point in the future.” It is action now. Because while we postpone everything until “after victory,” the system has time to entrench itself, and corruption and agent networks have time to become normalized. And once something becomes the norm, dismantling it is too difficult.

So thank you for asking this fundamental question. It is not about politics—it is about survival. And if we are truly thinking strategically, we must stop living in the mode of “what if they come to their senses.” In wartime, strategy begins precisely where you prepare for the worst—and do everything possible to ensure it never happens.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.