Dismissal of Ukraine’s defense minister started a sudden transformation of the military

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — In the span of a single week, the dismissal of a Ukrainian defense minister set in motion a transformation of the country’s armed forces that replaced the old guard with a new generation of leadership.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to fire his popular defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, triggered days of public protest that quickly shifted toward the country’s commander-in-chief and highlighted the growing rift over the future of Ukraine’s military.

Demonstrators denounced the commander, Oleksandr Syrskyi, and overwhelmingly rallied behind the departed defense minister, who has emerged as one of the country’s most influential wartime reformers with support from Ukrainians hungry for change. Protesters demanded his reinstatement. Fedorov’s dismissal followed months of increasingly bitter disagreements between the two men.

For Zelenskyy, it was the second time in a year that a wartime decision triggered a public backlash, after he moved in mid-2025 to curb the powers of anti-corruption agencies. As he did then, the president appeared to move quickly to contain the political fallout. He dismissed Syrskyi and replaced him with Mykhailo Drapatyi, a disciplined battlefield commander whose reputation was forged in the years following Russia’s first invasion in 2014.

Drapatyi’s appointment marked a sharp generational and philosophical break from Syrskyi, who was shaped by Soviet military tradition. But public support continues to coalesce around Fedorov. The protests have further elevated his political standing.

Much of the public’s anger was directed at Syrskyi, who became a symbol of deeper frustrations that had accumulated within the military since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Drapatyi’s appointment has helped ease some of those concerns. Widely respected by troops and fellow officers, he represents a younger generation of commanders whose credibility was earned on the battlefield rather than inherited through the Soviet military system.

“He enjoys a high level of trust within the military. I think this appointment could boost what is often called morale, that is, strengthen the fighting spirit,” said Oleksandr Musiienko, a military analyst in Kyiv.

The divide between Fedorov and Syrskyi was described by one Western defense official as between “different planets.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief journalists.

Fedorov championed a data-driven, technology-led approach to warfare that clashed with Syrskyi’s more traditional ground-forces doctrine. Drapatyi could be a bridge between the two camps, analysts said. Low-profile but highly respected, he has earned the confidence of front-line commanders while embracing many of the reforms championed in Kyiv.

“He has shown an ability to adapt to the realities of modern warfare, to changing battlefield conditions and to shifting and reallocating resources,” Musiienko said.

For many Ukrainians, Syrksyi came to embody the rigid command structures and Soviet-era thinking that Fedorov’s ambitious reforms sought to overhaul. When Fedorov publicly identified Syrskyi as the chief obstacle to those reforms, it brought to light those broader public grievances.

They include the military’s entrenched bureaucracy and Syrskyi’s command style, criticized as overly centralized and prone to micromanagement, alongside constant mobilization challenges.

Syrskyi also came under intense criticism for his association with the 425th Separate Assault Regiment, known as Skelya, which for many Ukrainians became emblematic of the tactics that expended soldiers’ lives for marginal territorial gains.

In addition, the regiment was the focus of a major public scandal after an investigation by the Ukrainian publication Babel reported allegations of systemic abuse, torture in training camps and dozens of noncombat deaths. The allegations triggered an investigation, resulted in the suspension of the regiment’s commander and intensified scrutiny of the military’s command culture.

To some lawmakers and analysts, the episode demonstrated that democracy and accountability is alive in Ukraine despite martial law and the suspension of elections. Zelenskyy, they argued, showed he is still responsive to public demand.

Other lawmakers, however, cautioned that the episode could set a troubling precedent by allowing public sentiment, rather than institutional decision-making, to shape appointments to the military’s highest ranks.

Tetiana Shevchuk, a board member of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, said protest is one of the few ways the public can make their voice heard in the absence of elections.

“Frustrations built up to the point where people felt the only way to be heard was to take to the streets. That’s not a healthy precedent, but it should also be a signal to the government to address problems before they reach that stage,” Shevchuk said.

Ukrainian social media quickly filled with memes mocking the president’s apparent search for a new army chief, jokes that underscored the political cost of the episode for Zelenskyy.

Some memes depicted Zelenskyy interviewing absurd candidates, including Jon Snow from the “Game of Thrones” television series, as well as an alien and a dolphin.

Zelenskyy recently weathered a politically damaging corruption investigation involving several of his closest associates, including his former chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, who was dismissed amid mounting public pressure.

The protests were not simply an expression of support for Fedorov, Shevchuk said. They reflected public backing for the reforms he aspired to create.

“Fedorov was pushing the idea that Ukraine had to preserve every soldier’s life and become more efficient than Russia,” Shevchuk said. “Over the past six months, people finally felt Ukraine was gaining an advantage. For the first time in a long time, there was hope that this war was winnable — that we weren’t just taking loans while slowly losing territory.”

Then Zelenskyy dismissed him.

Despite Drapatyi’s appointment, the political drama is far from over. Fedorov appears unwilling to accept another government post unless he is reinstated as defense minister, the same demand many protesters continue to make.

Where he goes next, and whether he returns to government at all, could shape the next phase of the saga.

The episode has also elevated the political profile of Fedorov, who was once known primarily as the architect of Ukraine’s digital transformation and subordinate to Zelenskyy. Now he has a broad base of public support.

That inevitably raises questions about his long-term political future.

In just six months as defense minister, Fedorov pursued an ambitious agenda aimed at accelerating Ukraine’s military modernization.

He redirected funds originally earmarked for personnel costs toward long-range strike capabilities, fiber-optic drones, reconnaissance systems and other advanced technologies. He also highlighted expanded drone acquisition, new contracts related to Patriot air-defense systems, successful ballistic missile tests and a sweeping overhaul of military procurement.

Fedorov also proposed overhauling military service contracts to make front-line service more sustainable, including higher pay, expanded leave and greater flexibility for infantry soldiers. The changes resonated with troops.

___

Associated Press journalist Volodymyr Yurchuk contributed.