On the 15th July, Ukraine’s Minister of Defence, Mykhailo Federov, was unexpectedly dismissed by Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Due to the abrupt decision, questions have emerged regarding whether this was a tactical approach by the Ukrainian government, especially in a critical moment where Federov’s reformist approach has been demonstrating progress in recruiting foreign nationals and deploying drones in military contractors. As a consequence, Ukrainian civilians are both outraged and confused about Zelensky’s choice, and consider whether the Ukrainian government are putting the civilians’ best interests, or involving traditionalist militia regimes that had previously proven to be unsuccessful against Russia’s defence forces. While the future of the front lines remains ambigious, with the additional dismissal of Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi, Federov’s termination becomes questionable, posing concern for the next official steps.
Federov’s success before the dismissal:
Despite being appointed in January, Federov was considered highly successful on the security front against Russia. His advocacy for drone operations highlighted his capabilities to dismiss previous practices that were endangering Ukrainian civilians and soldiers by launching a crowdfunding campaign called the Army of Drones, which would supply soldiers with drones and support them on the ground level. This was advantageous for Ukraine, as Federov introduced a new initiative to centralise the production of weapons and drones. In turn, Federov was able to show results within the six months of his appointment, and demonstrate that instilling a dated, military-style command was not always favourable. Additionally, Federov’s conversations with Elon Musk permitted any Russian affiliations with Starlink, a satellite internet installation, to be disabled, becoming an asset in minimising assaults in many sectors on the front lines, and demonstrating an initiative that positions Ukraine at an advantage. In turn, alongside reaching a milestone at a young age, Federov was influential in leading Ukrainian Soldiers through technological advancements and relaying with external contacts to gain better leverage against Russia. Considering Federov’s success with Starlink, his technological initiatives, and his capability to bring foreign nationals to the line, Federov built an advantageous resume against previous Ukrainian defence ministers in a short amount of time.
Syrskyi’s Involvement:
Yet, despite Federov’s progress, there were concerns about his relationship with Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief, Oleksandr Syrskyi. A possible rift had reached a point where it needed to be resolved to avoid reducing the war to confrontation. While Syrskyi denies conflict and claims there was professionalism with few disagreements, it is reasonable to believe that, given Federov’s modern outlook on technological advancements, his decision to fight corruption within the Ministry of Defence was not appreciated by Syrskyi, who had a more traditional perspective. Syrskyi’s Soviet-style approach was unlike Federov’s modern initiative with technological developments, possibly due to him being older, effectively causing Zelensky to view Federov’s decision to refuse involvement in military contracts as a considerable factor in his dismissal. While both styles have had their successes on the defence line, the choice to optimise technology and employ drones as additional warfare was seen as new and unlike previous tactics, which were not aligned with Syrskyi’s military command, potentially insulting his order. While there were discussions about whether Syrskyi provided an ultimatum in keeping him or Federov, Federov’s long-term reformist approach seemed to have had minimal influence on Zelensky, as despite their close relationship, there was an overarching concern that Federov had not fulfilled his promises and would refuse criticism when given regarding his technological reform.
What does this mean for Ukraine?
There could not be a worse time for Federov’s dismissal, especially with recent talk about Ukraine signing contracts to move forward with drone cooperation. Federov’s reformist approach was not taken lightly by Zelensky, and consequently, the sudden leadership change risks hindering future developments regarding Ukraine’s position against Russia. Regardless of whether the reason for Federov’s dismissal was based on his conflict with Syrskyi, or whether his drone operation would not have been successful long-term, Zelensky’s decision has little acknowledgement of public opinion, especially from Ukrainian soliders. While minimal reports discuss the soldiers’ opinions due to the soldiers’ fear of military repercussions, this presents urgency in recognising how the soliders may be affected by surprise leadership reforms if they are not made aware in time. If this behaviour continues to be prevalent, Zelensky’s popularity risks irreversible damage, and this could cause greater refusal for young men to choose to deploy themselves within the defence force, and additional negligence of Ukrainian civilians upholding trust in Zelensky’s decision to solve the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
Overall, the future of Ukraine’s defence unit remains ambigious and, truthfully, worrisome. Federov’s dismissal at a pivotal time for Ukraine has left civilians, soldiers and the broader Ukrainian political sphere in a difficult position in deciding whether to move forward with progressive, technological developments that fight the corruption inside the Ministry of Defence, or to revert to a Soviet-style approach that appeases traditional, military command. This sudden change in bureaucratic authority positions Zelensky in an unfavourable light, especially with recent reports of the president asking for Federov to return to his post, foreboding the impression that he is not firmly rooted in his initial decision to dismiss Federov, and with public opinion overwhelming his authority. Ultimately, Federov became a victim of internal conflicts within the defence system, resulting in greater concern about the future of Ukraine’s position against Russia. It is impossible to say whether the drone operations will continue to be an investment in the defence system, and if not, how this will reflect on the progress Federov has shown.
With the recent news of Sysrki additionally being dismissed on the 22nd July, it will be interesting to see how much more the Ukrainian line of command changes. Last week, there was a solid team within Ukraine, yet the popularity of an official has become politically stigmatised under Zelensky’s governance, causing them to face repercussions regardless of any positive changes. Ultimately, there would be a favourable sense in Federov accepting his position back as the Minister of Defence, or accepting Zelensky’s offer for a higher authoritative position, yet the huge changes that have occurred within the week not only position Federov’s reappointment as ambigious, but current governance as unreliable. To move forward, Zelensky needs to consider which developments and innovations are working in the present time, rather than reverting to the familiar bureaucratic system that has proven to be inadequate for defence success.
