That’s a fair criticism. While it’s true that everybody does want “power”, there’s a distinction to be made between the personal agency that we all share (and often rightly seek more of), and the power to which I’m referring here.

It’s likely that the first type, of personal power, is included in the other type of power, but what is meant here by “power” is: you get to shape the future and make huge money doing it.

Regarding Ilya’s seemingly contradictory behavior, it appears more likely that he wasn’t really orchestrating the coup.

Instead, he was a pawn, manipulated by other interests to be the public face of the coup. These interests appealed to his ego and desire for more recognition and power within the company. Ilya’s perceived entitlement to a more significant role probably made him an easy target. So, it’s not accurate to say that Ilya orchestrated the coup.

It seems it was orchestrated by other key players on the board, primarily the backers behind the scenes. These backers likely include intelligence and policy security experts fronted by Helen (the AU-UK-China intelligence and security policy wonk axis), and those aligned with military-industrial interests, such as those represented by Tasha (RAND Corporation et al).

This coup had probably been planned for a while, with the goal of removing Sam who created obstacles to their plans. They tried to provoke him into a mistake, and when they believed they saw a moment of weakness, they executed their plan. However, the plan failed spectacularly.

For obvious reasons this would never probably be widely acknowledged, so it may be written up in some more niche blogs on use letters if anyone cares to do the investigative journalism.

As a result, as I previously stated it would be unwise to consider at face value The lies and presented as explanations for the coup, because of the power that is at stake.

Moreover, if you wish to gain a clearer understanding, consider the context into which the obvious players are in bedded.