Even as Ukraine’s civilians endure brutal strikes by Russia, thousands have taken to the streets to protest against Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s sacking of Mykhailo Fedorov, the popular young defence minister, last week after he clashed with the commander-in-chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi. On Tuesday night, demonstrators’ calls were answered as the Ukrainian president fired the general and offered Mr Fedorov a “prominent” role and promised an overhaul of the army command.
Mr Fedorov, widely credited for significant improvements in the country’s military performance and reducing corruption, had made a scathing attack on Gen Syrskyi after his dismissal – accusing him of blocking reforms and refusing to cooperate. The general seems to have seen the minister as exceeding his remit and effectively taking control of units. The pair also butted heads over Mr Fedorov’s plans to improve recruitment and training to reduce the deep anger created by the conscription system. A Soviet-schooled military officer deeply embedded within institutions tussled with a young civilian disruptor taking a more agile, improvisational approach.
The danger is that the row imperils Ukraine’s regained momentum in Vladimir Putin’s war, after last summer’s nadir. Moscow has failed to translate a massive expansion of ground forces into a sustained and decisive advantage. Its spring offensive fell well short of ambitions. Kyiv is taking the fight to the aggressor. Civilian casualties on both sides rose 37% in the first half of this year, the UN said, reflecting increasing strikes on heavily populated cities far from the frontline. Impressive attacks on logistics and critical infrastructure deep inside Russia have led to widespread fuel rationing, diminishing the public appetite for war, though Moscow may now be stabilising supply. Crimea, annexed in 2014 and now strategically critical, is no longer a tourist idyll but is struggling with petrol, water and electricity shortages.
But in an article this week, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, ambassador to London and former commander-in-chief, warned against believing that Russia had lost. It is still counting on its size and the gradual weakening of international support to exhaust Ukraine “economically, militarily and psychologically”.
The US president, who likes winners, was surprisingly positive after meeting Mr Zelenskyy at the Nato summit this month, saying that there was “a lot of love in that room”. The longer his amicability can be sustained the better, but no one is counting on it. European enthusiasm for enhanced sanctions is wavering. Western leaders are watching the domestic crisis with concern. They want to see stability.
The most important issue, however, is the judgment of Ukrainians. They have understood that wartime can require different leadership, even if they had existing concerns about Mr Zelenskyy’s centralising tendencies, populism and suspicion of potential political rivals. But they have not handed him a blank cheque. There were concerns when he fired Mr Zaluzhnyi as military chief in 2024. A year ago, protests forced him to U-turn after he stripped anti-corruption agencies of their independence.
This crisis is at best an unwelcome distraction from Ukraine’s military and diplomatic successes. But it also demonstrates that while war has muted criticism and taken elections off the table, Mr Zelenskyy remains answerable to the public. That accountability, unimaginable in Russia, is another powerful reminder of why Ukraine is fighting, as well as a way to ensure that it does so effectively.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
