Volodymyr Zelenskyy has dismissed Ukraine’s widely admired defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, in a sudden reshuffle that has exposed deep rifts at the top of the country’s wartime leadership and triggered street protests over the direction of the war against Russia. The move removes a 35‑year‑old technologist credited with modernizing Ukraine’s outgunned military, and replaces him, at least for now, with an acting minister from the security services as Zelenskyy insists, he had no choice but to “choose one side or the other” in a bitter row between the defense ministry and the army command.
The dismissal and who replaces Fedorov
Euronews reports that Zelenskyy dismissed Fedorov as defense minister this week as part of his latest government reshuffle, which also saw the prime minister replaced. Fedorov was the first to confirm the move, posting on social media: “It was a great honor to serve the Ukrainian people as Defense Minister.”
Initially, Ukrainian media suggested that Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko would succeed Fedorov. But by Thursday, Zelenskyy had instead put forward Maj‑Gen Yevhen Khmara, acting head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), as acting defense minister. Khmara is described by Zelenskyy as having “extensive, and in many respects unprecedented, experience with technological combat operations,” signaling a desire to keep a tech‑centric approach at the ministry even without Fedorov.
Parliament approved a new cabinet led by former state oil and gas boss Serhiy Koretskyi as prime minister, after Yuliia Svyrydenko’s resignation. Lawmakers were due to vote on Klymenko as a permanent defense minister, but Zelenskyy later said Klymenko was just “one of the potential candidates” and that no formal nomination had been submitted.
For now, Khmara’s acting role will bridge a sensitive transition at a time when Ukraine is trying to sustain recent battlefield gains and prepare for another winter of Russian attacks on its energy grid.
Why Zelenskyy says he fired Fedorov
Publicly, Zelenskyy has framed the decision as an effort to “renew” the government and resolve a systemic conflict at the top of the war effort.
At a press conference alongside UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Zelenskyy acknowledged that relations between the defense ministry and the military general staff had broken down. “The conflict was systemic and occurred at various levels,” he said, adding that Fedorov and Commander‑in‑Chief Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi would only work together if he personally mediated.
In a social‑media post announcing the broader reshuffle, Zelenskyy said Ukraine needed a new “political strategy,” with officials made individually responsible for key areas such as securing Patriot air‑defense systems and increasing drone production. He argued that the government and law‑enforcement agencies required “renewal” and that the reshuffle was meant to bring “greater unity” during the war.
The Financial Times notes that Zelenskyy’s decision reflects his conclusion that he had to choose “one side or the other” in the running dispute between Fedorov and Syrskyi. In that calculus, the president sided with the generals, a choice that has surprised many who saw Fedorov as a driving force behind Ukraine’s recent military modernization.
Fedorov’s version: a clash with Syrskyi
Fedorov has offered a different, more pointed explanation: a personal and strategic clash with Ukraine’s top general.
BBC and New Zealand Herald coverage say Fedorov revealed that he had suggested to Zelenskyy that Commander‑in‑Chief Syrskyi and Chief of the General Staff Andrii Hnatov should be replaced. Zelenskyy refused, saying the conflict between the ministry and the general staff was systemic but insisting he wanted both sides to work together.
Fedorov said he then told Zelenskyy he was willing to work with Syrskyi. But according to Fedorov, Syrskyi responded by issuing his own ultimatum: that Zelenskyy fire the defense minister. After that, Fedorov alleges, “all the initiatives we proposed began to be blocked” and Syrskyi refused to meet him “face to face and openly” to discuss the war’s problems.
“Instead of working out how to defeat Russia asymmetrically, which is his job, he worked out how to divide the country in which we all live. That is a serious problem,” Fedorov said of Syrskyi. He argues that the general blocked reform plans designed to make Ukraine’s defense ministry more agile and more aligned with a tech‑centric, drone‑heavy form of warfare.
Fedorov also told reporters he turned down Zelenskyy’s offer to stay on as a presidential adviser after his dismissal, saying he preferred to step aside rather than serve in a more symbolic role.
Who Fedorov is and why he mattered
Fedorov’s removal is particularly controversial because of the role he played in reshaping Ukraine’s war machine.
The FT describes him as “the 35‑year‑old architect of Ukraine’s wartime defense technology drive,” a former digital‑transformation minister who helped build the country’s drone and electronic‑warfare capabilities. ABC News notes that he was a “technology specialist striving to transform Ukraine’s outnumbered military into a more capable force against Russia,” and that he was widely praised by soldiers and civil society groups despite avoiding the spotlight.
Appointed defense minister just six months ago, Fedorov pushed reforms aimed at streamlining procurement, integrating tech startups into military programs, and expanding the use of drones, sensors, and AI‑driven targeting. News outlets and military commentators credit those efforts with contributing to recent Ukrainian gains on the battlefield.
His removal therefore signals more than a personnel change; it raises questions about whether Ukraine will continue with the same technological reform agenda or tilt back toward more traditional military structures under Syrskyi and Khmara.
Protests and political fallout
Zelenskyy’s decision has triggered some of the rare public protests seen in Ukraine since Russia’s full‑scale invasion.
BBC reports that crowds of mostly young people gathered in Kyiv and other cities on Thursday, carrying signs reading “Hands off Fedorov” and “Stop sabotaging victory!” and chanting “Shame!” outside government buildings. ABC News says hundreds of demonstrators took to the streets, coinciding with the resignation of a senior commander overseeing Kyiv’s air defense operations.
Members of parliament from Zelenskyy’s own Servant of the People party have expressed frustration, and civil‑society activists warn that sidelining a popular reformer risks undermining morale at a critical juncture in the war. Some MPs have protested inside the chamber, accusing the president of “sabotaging victory” by deepening divisions in the command structure.
The Guardian writes that the move has sparked “one of Ukraine’s biggest political controversies since Russia’s invasion,” as Zelenskyy defends himself against accusations that he is prioritizing loyalty to the military hierarchy over the technocratic reforms many saw as vital for long‑term success.
What Zelenskyy’s reshuffle aims to do
The dismissal of Fedorov is part of a broader reshuffle that Zelenskyy says is designed to tighten accountability and prepare for a long war.
As part of the changes, parliament approved Serhiy Koretskyi, an energy executive and former oil and gas chief, as the new prime minister. Koretskyi has pledged to “fully equip” the military with drones, strengthen Ukraine’s defense industry and prepare for another winter of Russian attacks on the power grid.
Zelenskyy has argued that his new “political strategy” will make specific officials responsible for critical tasks, including securing air‑defense systems from Western allies and scaling up domestic arms production. By moving Khmara, a security‑service veteran with tech combat experience, into the defense ministry, he appears to be trying to blend the military’s operational culture with the technological emphasis that Fedorov championed.
However, the president’s choice to side with Syrskyi in the leadership clash suggests that, when push came to shove, he was unwilling to risk a wider split in the armed forces by backing Fedorov against the commander‑in‑chief.
A wider struggle over how to wage the war
Behind the personnel drama lies a deeper debate about how Ukraine should fight as the Russian war grinds on.
Video explainers from international outlets say Fedorov and Syrskyi represent different schools of thought: Fedorov pushing for an “asymmetric” approach built around drones, precision strikes and tech‑driven battlefield awareness, Syrskyi leaning more on classic combined‑arms concepts and large‑scale mobilization.
Reports from Euronews and ABC News note that recruitment and mobilization were key points of tension; Zelenskyy held a meeting with Fedorov and Syrskyi this week to discuss mobilization challenges before deciding on the dismissal. Both men have had to manage a tired, outnumbered army facing a better‑resourced opponent, and disagreements over how to sustain the force and rotate units have simmered for months.
Zelenskyy insists his shake‑up is about “unity” and strengthening the war effort. Critics counter that removing a popular reformer under pressure from the military risks weakening civilian oversight and narrowing Ukraine’s strategic options just as it seeks fresh momentum on the battlefield. Zelenskyy’s sacking of Mykhailo Fedorov is thus more than a reshuffle line: it is a revealing moment in Ukraine’s struggle to balance military cohesion with innovation in a war that is likely to run on for years.