The sacking of a popular, modernising defence minister has exposed damaging divisions over Ukraine’s military strategy and the armed forces’ willingness to address its shortcomings just as momentum in the war against Russia has swung in its favour.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week dismissed Mykhailo Fedorov after only six months in the job. The shock move triggered protests in Kyiv and other cities on Thursday and Friday and plunged the government into turmoil.
Fedorov, the 35-year-old defence minister credited with accelerating Ukraine’s digital transformation and drone industry, had clashed for months with commander-in-chief General Oleksandr Syrsky over how Ukraine should fight the war.
“We faced a complete blockage of all our initiatives,” Fedorov said on Thursday. Rather than working together to find new ways to defeat Russia, Syrsky had “figured out how to split the country”, he added at a dramatic press conference in an underground car park in Kyiv.
Thousands of Ukrainians protested outside the presidential administration in response, accusing Zelenskyy of sidelining a minister who had helped Ukraine advance by innovating and expanding drone production and warfare. The protests continued into Friday, thrusting the government into turmoil.
Beyond the personal feud, the rift between the men has become a proxy for a generational struggle between Ukraine’s technology-driven reformers and an older military establishment whose command culture was forged in the Soviet era and has struggled to adapt to a war being reshaped by drones and automation.
In the unprecedented public airing of grievances, the conflict also exposed a clash of visions over how a smaller military facing manpower constraints should adapt to a rapidly changing battlefield to fight its larger foe.
Officials familiar with the dispute said the conflict reflected fundamentally different visions of whether victory depended on technological transformation and a more efficient military system, or on sustaining the fight through endurance and mobilisation.
Fedorov responded to his sacking by mounting an extraordinary public thrashing of the country’s wartime leadership, questioning its military strategy, command structure and defence procurement practices.
He accused Syrsky of blocking reforms he said were essential to defeating Russia, and blamed the General Staff for failing to come up with a broader strategic plan.
Fedorov said Zelenskyy had sided with Syrsky after the commander demanded Fedorov’s removal.
Kyiv’s drone campaign against Russian energy infrastructure and shadow fleet tankers in the Black and Azov seas has spurred Russia’s worst fuel crisis in decades, while its medium-range drones targeting Russian logistics in occupied Ukrainian territory have helped slow Moscow’s ground offensive into a costly and incremental advance.
But the public rupture among the top of Ukraine’s wartime leadership has cast doubt over whether Kyiv can sustain its success.
The fallout spread through Ukraine’s military ranks on Thursday. Pavlo Yelizarov, deputy commander of the air force, resigned in protest at Fedorov’s dismissal, saying it was “a great evil for the country’s defence capability”.
Mykhailo Drapatyi, commander of Ukraine’s joint forces, also publicly backed Fedorov, offering rare criticism of the military system and commander-in-chief he serves. “The army needs changes,” Drapatyi wrote on Facebook. “When the right decision has to be made against the system, rather than because of it, it means the system itself needs to change.”
Serhii Sobko, a Ukrainian combat officer and brigadier general who served in the territorial defence forces, said commanders had to be given the authority to make decisions.
“Today, more and more commanders are forced to think not only about accomplishing their combat missions, but also about how to avoid punishment,” he wrote in a stinging post on Facebook on Friday.
Fedorov’s central argument for change was that Ukraine’s military needed to adapt faster to a battlefield increasingly shaped by drones, robotics and rapid technological advances.
He praised Syrsky for leading the defence of Kyiv in 2022 and subsequent counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson. But he argued that the battlefield had fundamentally and rapidly evolved since then and Syrsky had failed to keep up.
“The war has changed completely,” Fedorov said. Drone technology now evolves several times a year, he argued, requiring faster procurement, shorter decision-making chains and a military more willing to experiment.
“We cannot go on what worked then,” he said.
In response to Fedorov’s press conference, Syrsky said: “I wish him continued success and hope he remains part of Team Ukraine.”
Zelenskyy has said he will offer Fedorov another role in his administration, a move that may placate supporters who have protested over his removal. It remains unclear what position he will be offered.
Fedorov represented a model of warfare built around technological innovation, greater use of drones and robots, and a more agile military capable of adapting to a changing battlefield, one senior Ukrainian defence official said.
Recommended
Syrsky, by contrast, has struggled to articulate a similarly compelling vision for how Ukraine can ultimately prevail, the official argued.
“One problem is Syrsky hasn’t got a sense of how he’s going to win,” the official said. “Syrsky’s theory of victory is simply to hold out as long as you can and mobilise more people.”
Fedorov also defended procurement reforms introduced during his tenure, saying competitive tenders for artillery shells and drones had lowered costs, broadened access for Ukrainian manufacturers and disrupted networks that had long favoured politically connected suppliers.
“There is a lot of corruption,” he said, describing efforts to remove officials he accused of maintaining close ties with private defence companies and law enforcement agencies.
Several people familiar with the situation told the FT that Fedorov had blocked numerous attempts to steer lucrative procurement contracts to favoured companies, which put him at odds with powerful figures inside Ukraine’s political and defence establishment — and Syrsky.
Syrsky did not respond directly to Fedorov’s allegations. The General Staff did not respond to a request for further comment.
Zelenskyy said he wanted unity between Fedorov and Syrsky. “I do not absolve myself of responsibility,” the president said on Thursday. ‘‘I have to choose one side or the other, because without me they do not sit down at the negotiating table.”
In the end, he chose the general, reviving concerns over the lack of civilian control over Ukraine’s armed forces — an issue that has become increasingly sensitive as the military has gained influence during the war.
Fedorov accused the General Staff of repeatedly blocking defence ministry initiatives. He suggested that some decisions were being made based on loyalty rather than competence and that Syrsky would ignore his decisions or go around him to get approval from the president.
“Syrsky went against civilian orders,” said the senior defence official. “Generals should never go against the government. It’s against the Ukraine law on national security. But Zelenskyy has allowed it.”
Zelenskyy has appointed Yevhenii Khmara, who had been serving as acting head of the security service, as acting defence minister. He said he would seek parliamentary approval to make Khmara defence minister once he retired from military service, in line with Ukraine’s requirement that the post be held by a civilian.
Analysts and activists acknowledged Khmara’s qualifications. But some argued the choice underscored Zelenskyy’s growing preference for military figures in traditionally civilian roles, raising concerns that wartime decision-making is becoming increasingly concentrated within the armed forces.
The senior defence official predicted that Khmara’s appointment would eventually create another confrontation with Syrsky, because the two men were both strong-centred personalities who would vie for control.
“Khmara is not going to just follow what Syrsky says,” the official said. “He is smart enough not to go against him straight away, but eventually there is likely to be a conflict.”
Additional reporting by Fabrice Deprez in Kyiv
Source:
www.ft.com