Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has initiated a significant shake-up of his nation's defense leadership, dismissing Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi and Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov. The removal of Fedorov, who gained public acclaim for his work on drone strategy, sparked widespread protests, while the appointment of Mykhailo Drapatyi as the new commander-in-chief is being framed by the administration as a broader restructuring of the armed forces.

While many observers have interpreted these events as personal clashes, research suggests the friction is rooted in institutional design. Ukraine’s current framework, influenced by Soviet-era legacies, maintains a system where both the defense minister and the commander-in-chief report independently to the president. This structure frequently encourages military leaders to bypass civilian oversight by appealing directly to the head of state, a dynamic that has persisted through multiple administrations and personnel changes.

Advertisement

Efforts to implement democratic civilian control—a requirement for NATO and EU alignment—have faced consistent resistance. Interviews with those involved in defense reform indicate that military leadership has historically opposed subordination to civilian ministers. Furthermore, the president has often remained ambivalent toward these reforms, frequently prioritizing the counsel of military commanders over civilian strategic policymakers. This tendency has been exacerbated by the ongoing war, which has increased the president's reliance on military trust, as well as by historical corruption scandals within defense procurement that have eroded institutional confidence.

Although the recent public outcry forced a change in leadership, analysts suggest that replacing individuals does not resolve the underlying structural challenges. As long as the current institutional arrangement allows the military to circumvent civilian authority, the potential for conflict between political and military leadership remains high, particularly as the existential pressures of war continue to empower the military to resist reforms.

Source: The Conversation