Kyiv, Ukraine – Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s recently dismissed defense minister, publicly defended his tenure and initiatives for military modernization on Thursday, simultaneously directing criticism at the country’s top military commander. His remarks coincided with widespread street protests across Ukraine, where citizens demonstrated against his removal from office.
During a news conference held in Kyiv, the capital, Mr. Fedorov disclosed that he had advocated to President Volodymyr Zelensky for the dismissal of General Oleksandr Syrskyi, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, citing irreconcilable differences. According to Mr. Fedorov, President Zelensky declined this request.
Mr. Fedorov, aged 35, who has been a vocal proponent of technologically advanced warfare, particularly emphasizing the strategic use of drones, stated that he had repeatedly experienced friction with General Syrskyi, 60. He accused the commander in chief of “blocking all of our initiatives,” which he contended were crucial for adapting Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
Mr. Fedorov articulated his strategic vision, stating that rather than focusing on “how to defeat Russia asymmetrically” – a clear reference to the nation’s burgeoning drone program and long-range strike capabilities – General Syrskyi had instead focused on “how to split the country.” This suggests a deep ideological divergence on military strategy and organizational priorities within the Ukrainian leadership at a critical juncture in the ongoing conflict.
In response to the public statements, General Syrskyi posted a message on social media. While his post did not directly address Mr. Fedorov’s specific allegations, it emphasized the importance of maintaining national unity and strategic focus. General Syrskyi asserted that the ability of former officials like Mr. Fedorov to hold public press conferences was itself a testament to the military’s effectiveness and successes in defending Ukraine against aggression. He concluded by stating, “We need to focus on the war and on an effective strategy that is currently demonstrating concrete results,” implying a continued commitment to the existing military approach under his command.
The dismissal of Mr. Fedorov, who had served only six months in his role, sparked significant public outcry. Thousands of individuals participated in rallies across various Ukrainian cities on Thursday, calling for President Zelensky to reinstate the former defense minister. Protests were observed in major urban centers including Kyiv, Odesa in the south, and Lviv in the west. In Kharkiv, a frontline city in the northeast, over 300 protesters gathered, holding handmade signs and chanting slogans such as “Shame, shame, shame!” The demonstrations grew in size throughout the morning, reflecting widespread discontent.
The timing of Mr. Fedorov’s removal particularly dismayed many protesters and observers, as it occurred at a point when several military analysts suggested the conflict had begun to shift in Ukraine’s favor. This perceived positive turn in momentum was considered by some to be the most significant since the initial months of the conflict, following a series of Russian setbacks. This series of demonstrations represents only the second instance of large-scale street protests in Ukraine during the more than four years of ongoing warfare. The previous significant rallies took place last year, prompted by President Zelensky’s proposed measures concerning anti-corruption agencies.
Demonstrators’ signs conveyed clear messages of support for the former minister, with phrases like “Hands off Fedorov!” and “Why break what’s working?” Mr. Fedorov had become widely recognized as a symbol of Ukraine’s advancements in modern warfare, particularly its effective deployment of long-range drones. These unmanned systems have been instrumental in striking military and oil industry targets within Russia and in conducting operations aimed at disrupting Russian control over occupied Crimea. His advocacy for a high-tech approach was seen by many as crucial for Ukraine’s strategic advantage.
His unexpected departure was met with dismay among many protesters, who interpreted it as a setback for innovation and a victory for more traditional elements within the military establishment and defense industry, which had reportedly resisted his vision for the future of warfare. This sentiment was encapsulated in protest signs featuring variations of the slogan, “Fedorov is innovation, old grandpas are degeneration,” highlighting a generational and ideological divide regarding military strategy.
Addressing the public’s reaction during his news conference on Thursday, Mr. Fedorov acknowledged the widespread anger. He stated, “Today we see that the Ukrainian people have taken a stand,” and questioned the timing of his dismissal: “Why is it that now, when hopes have emerged and the initiative has been seized, this trajectory is breaking?”
Among the participants in the Kharkiv protest was Maria Chaplihina, a 12-year-old who stood with her grandfather, holding a sign that read “Bring Back Fedorov.” She described it as her first time participating in a protest and expressed the importance of making her views known, despite many of her friends remaining at home. Maria articulated her belief that winning the war is paramount and that Mr. Fedorov had been performing effectively in his role.
She commented, “Our president wants to overthrow him because he’s doing a good job. People don’t like it, and neither do I.” Emphasizing the desire for the government to heed public opinion, she added, “We want the president to hear us. We need to speak.” Her grandfather observed, expressing pride in her articulate expression and civic engagement.
The call for Thursday’s nationwide demonstrations originated from Dmytro Koziatynsky, a war veteran known for organizing similar protests in July last year. Those previous demonstrations, often referred to as the “cardboard protests” due to the makeshift nature of their signs, successfully pressured President Zelensky to reverse certain policies related to anti-corruption agencies. This history suggests a precedent for public pressure influencing governmental decisions.
In Kyiv, at least 1,000 individuals gathered in a central square located within earshot of President Zelensky’s office on Bankova Street. The crowd, predominantly composed of young people, rhythmically stamped their feet, waved signs, and vocally demanded the resignation of General Syrskyi, the commander in chief.
Andriy Fedun, 54, a retired psychologist, expressed his concerns, stating, “I really worry about what is happening now.” Mr. Fedun, who previously supported President Zelensky and admired his diplomatic efforts to garner international support for Ukraine, believes that the decision to dismiss a popular defense minister at a time when the war’s trajectory appeared to be improving for Ukraine was a strategic misstep. He highlighted the potential for internal division to benefit adversaries, remarking, “The Russians dream of our having internal problems. Why remove him now?”
As of Thursday, there was no immediate public statement or response from President Zelensky regarding the widespread demonstrations or the resignation of his former defense minister. However, images and reports of the protests quickly circulated across social media platforms. In a notable development, Colonel Pavlo Yelizarov, the deputy commander of Ukraine’s Air Forces, announced his resignation in protest. In a Facebook post accompanying his resignation letter, Colonel Yelizarov warned that abandoning Mr. Fedorov’s strategic air-defense reforms would likely lead to increased damage from Russian strikes, describing the dismissal as “a great evil for the country’s defense capability.”
Many other Ukrainians also conveyed their disapproval on social media, including DeepState, a Ukrainian organization closely associated with the military that monitors battlefield developments. DeepState posted a message on its Telegram channel, which has over 765,000 followers, stating, “Dismiss Syrskyi!” This indicated significant public and quasi-official discontent extending beyond the street protests.
In Kharkiv, Kateryna Arkhypova, an IT professional and protester, articulated a widely held sentiment, emphasizing that Ukraine’s path to victory in the conflict requires a “young, reformed system with new approaches, rather than with outdated Soviet approaches to life, war and regulations.” This perspective underscores a desire for a fundamental shift in military and governmental philosophy.
Some active-duty soldiers also participated in the demonstrations. Nazariy Yeremenko, 25, a soldier, described the situation as a “glaring injustice.” He expressed hope that “the power of the people, the power of free speech, will bring more sanity to the legislative system of Ukraine.” Yeremenko cited Ukraine’s successful deep strikes into Russian territory, the campaign to isolate Crimea, and attacks on Moscow as evidence of Mr. Fedorov’s effective strategies and value to the war effort. Behind him, the crowd chanted “Parliament, say no,” urging lawmakers to reject President Zelensky’s reported choice to replace Mr. Fedorov, Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.
Mr. Fedorov’s departure is part of a broader governmental reshuffling within Ukraine. This period has also seen the resignation of Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko, who was subsequently replaced by Serhiy Koretsky, the chief executive of the national oil and gas company. While the Ukrainian Parliament voted to approve the nominations of Mr. Koretsky and several other ministerial appointments, the vote for the defense minister position was notably delayed. This postponement could signal potential difficulties for President Zelensky in securing parliamentary approval for his preferred candidate for the critical defense portfolio.
Nataliia Novosolova contributed reporting.
Why This Matters
The dismissal of Mykhailo Fedorov as Ukraine’s defense minister and the ensuing public protests carry significant implications for the country’s war effort, internal political stability, and international perception. At its core, the controversy highlights a strategic ideological conflict within Ukraine’s military and political leadership: a tension between traditional military doctrines, often associated with the “old guard,” and a vision for modern, high-tech, and asymmetric warfare championed by Fedorov. Ukraine’s ability to maintain battlefield initiative and conduct effective counter-offensives against a larger adversary has increasingly relied on innovative technologies, particularly drones. A perceived weakening of this innovative drive could impact operational effectiveness and morale.
Furthermore, the public outcry demonstrates a growing willingness among Ukrainian citizens to openly challenge governmental decisions, even amidst a protracted war. The scale and widespread nature of these protests, particularly being only the second major public demonstration in four years of conflict, underscore the depth of public concern regarding this particular decision. Such internal dissent, especially regarding military leadership and strategy, could be exploited by Russia, potentially undermining national unity and presenting an image of discord to international allies. The resignation of a senior military official and calls from influential military-linked organizations for the commander-in-chief’s dismissal further amplify these concerns.
For President Zelensky, the situation presents a delicate political challenge. His administration must balance the need for effective military leadership with public sentiment and parliamentary approval, especially given the delay in confirming a new defense minister. The episode tests his authority and his ability to navigate internal political pressures while simultaneously prosecuting a war. Internationally, Ukraine’s allies will be observing these developments closely, as internal stability and a coherent military strategy are crucial for continued Western support, aid, and investment in the country’s defense. The perception of an internal struggle over military direction could raise questions about Ukraine’s long-term strategic coherence and its capacity to utilize aid effectively.