Politicians vs generals: Ukraine’s long, hidden war within

Asia Times  |  Sarah Whitmore, Bettina Renz

Ukrainian President Zelensky dismissed Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi and Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, triggering public protests and exposing deep-seated institutional rifts within the nation's wartime leadership. The high-profile dismissals followed intense public pressure over Syrskyi's Soviet-style command, contrasting with Fedorov's popular, modernizing drone strategies that defined Ukraine's defense efforts against the Russian invasion.

This political crisis stems from a 2018 law that preserved a Soviet-era legacy, allowing military chiefs to bypass the defense ministry and report directly to the president. Consequently, successive civilian ministers have faced marginalization and resistance from military leadership, a dynamic exacerbated by systemic procurement corruption scandals and failed Western-backed legislative reforms to subordinate the commander-in-chief to the ministry. Although the president appointed Mykhailo Drapatyi to succeed Syrskyi, these structural flaws ensure that institutional friction between Ukraine's civilian reformers and its military establishment will persist despite personnel changes, ultimately hindering democratic civilian control during an active existential conflict against Russia.

Comment

The institutional friction between the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine and the General Staff reveals how deeply embedded Soviet-era command structures remain. By allowing the commander-in-chief to bypass the defence minister, the 2018 Law on National Security structurally undermined democratic civilian control. This dual-reporting mechanism prioritises personal political access over institutionalised strategic planning. Consequently, Mykhailo Drapatyi's appointment will not resolve this systemic civil-military divide while the executive branch relies on informal personal relationships to manage wartime operations.

To read in details click here