A political crisis erupted in wartime Ukraine last week over the dismissal of Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov following a power struggle with Ukrainian army Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi. Fedorov’s removal has sparked widespread concern among Ukrainians, with many viewing it as a major threat to the current war effort and a significant setback in the broader struggle to move the country away from the Soviet past and modernize Ukraine’s key institutions.
As the head of a prominent Ukrainian civil society organization focused on defense sector reform, I have spent the past decade working with Ukraine’s defense sector institutions to advance transparency, accountability, and good governance. This including participating in the drafting of Ukraine’s 2018 Law on National Security, one of the most important pieces of legislation aligning Ukraine with NATO principles and European standards.
A central theme of the Law on National Security is democratic civilian control over the Ukrainian military. This Law does not envision a defense minister who merely signs procurement contracts or manages bureaucracy. Instead, it confirms that Ukraine’s defense minister should be a civilian with responsibility for defense policy, strategic oversight, and democratic accountability. In line with this document, the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian military is accountable to the defense minister on all matters related to achieving the country’s military objectives and developing military capabilities.
In other words, Ukraine’s minister of defense is expected to ask difficult questions and evaluate whether the military system is functioning effectively. This means analyzing the broader strategic picture rather than commanding troops on the battlefield or directing military strategy. The goal is to ensure that Ukraine’s defense system is constantly learning, adapting, and improving.
Fedorov only served as defense minister for six months but was widely praised for the many reforms and initiatives he introduced. His tech background as Ukraine’s former Minister for Digital Transformation translated into an emphasis on further improving the country’s already formidable drone warfare capabililities. In parallel, Fedorov’s decision to launch a battlefield audit was an entirely novel development for Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, while his efforts to introduce greater procurement transparency aimed to minimize opportunities for corruption.
Many observers openly questioned how long this innovative approach would be tolerated by the entrenched interests within the Ukrainian military and the country’s defense sector. We now have an answer. Half a year after taking office, Fedorov was ousted. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy framed the move as a decision that had been forced on him by the breakdown in communications between Fedorov and the army leadership. Unable to resolve this damaging confrontation, Zelenskyy chose to side with the army old guard rather than his reformist defense minister.
Stay updated
As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.
Following his dismissal, Fedorov stressed the need for genuine meritocracy in Ukraine’s military leadership and claimed that a number of successful commanders had been penalized rather than rewarded for their effectiveness. He argued that Ukraine requires a much deeper and more systematic analysis of combat losses in order to improve decision-making and save lives. Crucially, Fedorov also reiterated his belief that technology must fundamentally reshape the way Ukraine conducts military operations.
Whether one agrees with Fedorov’s conclusions and recommendations is not the central issue. The most important point is that this is precisely the type of strategic assessment a civilian defense minister is expected to provide according to Ukraine’s own legislation. The question now is whether Ukraine intends to preserve the model of democratic civilian control over the military that it adopted as part of the country’s Euro-Atlantic integration.
This is particularly relevant as Zelenskyy has picked Major General Yevhen Khmara to replace Fedorov at the defense ministry. Khmara is unquestionably one of Ukraine’s most outstanding wartime commanders and has an impressive record leading special operations against Russia from within Ukraine’s State Security Service. However, his appointment would reflect a departure from the country’s earlier commitment to civilian control over the military.
Eurasia Center events
Ukraine’s Law on National Security defines the defense minister not as a military commander but as the civilian head of one of the country’s largest public institutions. The distinction between military and civilian oversight is not a bureaucratic technicality. On the contrary, it should be viewed as central to the NATO model of democratic governance and is one of the key principles Ukraine chose to adopt as part of the country’s historic transition.
The public protests currently taking place in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities reflect genuine concern over the management of the war effort and the future direction of the country. Many Ukrainians see Fedorov as someone with the technological understanding necessary to help end the war and counter Russia’s strategy of methodically breaking Ukraine’s resistance.
Crucially, Fedorov is also seen as someone who is willing to confront difficult institutional problems rather than conceal them. Trust between society, the military, and the state is one of Ukraine’s most valuable strategic resources. At a time when mobilization ranks among the country’s greatest challenges, weakening that trust carries significant risks.
Since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s ability to learn, adapt, and innovate has proved absolutely vital. The principles embodied in the Law on National Security were designed to make this possible. The dismissal of the defense minister is therefore not merely a personnel decision. It is a test of whether wartime Ukraine will continue building the system of democratic civilian control over the military that it committed to years ago, or will instead begin to backtrack at the very moment when strong institutions matter most.
Olena Tregub is executive director of Ukraine’s Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (NAKO).
Further reading
The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.
The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values, and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia, and Central Asia in the East.
Follow us on social media
and support our work
Image: Outgoing Ukrainian Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov speaks during a briefing to journalists in Kyiv, Ukraine, on July 16, 2026. (Kyodo via Reuters Connect)