For many of us, Turkey’s attempt at a coup “at the top,” a relatively bloodless way to replace an authoritarian government, is the stuff of dreams.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky

For many of us, Turkey’s attempt at a coup “at the top,” a relatively bloodless way to replace an authoritarian government, is the stuff of dreams. The reasons for, and dynamics of, what happened have been well analysed. I will only point out that until this happened the Turkish army underpinned the secular development of the state, making no attempt to hold on to power after similar coups.

So what conclusions should we draw from this? The tales we are fed about “the hand of the West” in the battle for democracy are no more than just that, tales. In this kind of situation the West supports the winner. If, of course, the winning side were known to be unsuitable from the international point of view, the support would have been less clear-cut and less swift.

The victors are those who can bring their many supporters out on to the streets. The key words here are “supporters” and “bring out on to the streets.” Armchair troops are of no interest to anyone. The army and the intelligence services will wait to see where the people’s support is directed.

So for us there would seem to be no alternative to dogged political and educational work. I find it amusing to remember that in 1991, Viktor Zolotov – the commander-in-chief of Russia’s new National Guard, and the potential suppressor of any revolt – and I were on the barricades together outside Moscow’s White House. On the same side. But then, what goes around, comes around.