SerpApi.Org
This week's letters come from readers reflecting on the dismissal of former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov. An American volunteer fighter questions Ukraine's wartime leadership's decisions, an American military veteran argues the decision may harm the country's reform movement, and a British scholar urges Ukrainians to preserve military reforms while avoiding divisions that could benefit Russia.
Got an opinion on anything you've read in the Kyiv Independent? Send it to [email protected] — your letter may appear in our Letters section.
Read also: Protesters give Zelensky until Friday as he weighs Syrskyi’s dismissal; decision expected soon
Choosing politics over victory
Harrison Paluska, United States
For most of my time in Ukraine, having served in various capacities in different combat units throughout the Ukrainian Armed Forces since March of 2022, I have stayed increasingly informed, but mostly silent on what I saw as Ukraine's domestic politics.
The first major change that I realized I disapproved of was President Volodymyr Zelensky's dismissal of former Commander of the Armed Forces Velerii Zaluzhnyi, who had been in charge during the outrageously successful 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive in which I, and a number of other soldiers, participated, and found our respect for him.
Now, two years later, the Zelensky government has once again sidelined a widely respected and popular official, this time Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, seemingly placing more emphasis on playing politics than on retaining the most experienced and effective officials in positions of power.
Retaining someone like Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi while passing over a younger commander who has made a significant impact on the battlefield raises difficult questions about the direction of military leadership. For many servicemembers and their families, decisions like this can be deeply discouraging.
Federov's dismissal is not about him; it is an act placing the entire balance of Ukraine's continued war effort on trial. There will surely be a wave of resignations by senior officials, both in the military and in the civil service, in the coming days.
Will Zelensky continue to rely on an entrenched generation of Soviet-era leadership, potentially limiting reform efforts and allowing longstanding problems, including inefficiency and corruption, to persist? Or will he decide to correctly back younger, energetic, and enthusiastic change-makers like Fedorov to help bring this dark chapter of Ukrainian history to an end?
Read also: As Ukraine’s Crimea campaign grows, so does its underground resistance
Fedorov's removal may prove Zelensky's costliest long-term mistake
Noah Hall, United States
Mykhailo Fedorov's removal as Ukraine's defense minister will likely be remembered less for what it cost the war effort than for what it built in opposition to it. By sidelining one of the country's most popular officials, President Volodymyr Zelensky may have inadvertently solidified a reform movement poised to outlast his Servant of the People party once the war ends.
Fedorov's record is well established. His outreach to Elon Musk helped cut off Russian forces' access to Starlink, his procurement reforms helped scale Ukraine's mid-range strike campaign, and his streamlining of supply chains improved the availability of drones and munitions on the front.
His crackdown on corruption earned him as many enemies inside the defense establishment as admirers outside it. That record is what made his removal, after only six months in office, so jarring to so many and has led to daily protests in Kyiv and elsewhere.
In the short term, Zelensky may believe he has restored the status quo and removed a potential rival. The opposite may prove true. Fedorov's popularity has not only grown since his dismissal; it has also given rise to an idea that resonates more deeply than restoring one man to his position: victory demands change.
That popularity, and the ideal behind it, is the more important story. This is not the first time Ukraine has seen this pattern.
Last year's attempt to strip the anti-corruption agency NABU of its independence was reversed only after sustained public protest, reinforced by pressure from Western partners. Fedorov's removal lacks that external leverage, making a reversal less likely and the political consequences more durable.
Denied a path back into government, Fedorov becomes something more consequential to the current political order: a rallying point for reform-minded Ukrainians, in and out of uniform, with every reason to organize against the party that removed him once the war no longer demands unity.
Whether that coalition materializes will depend on choices that have yet to be made. But the political elite that pushed Fedorov out to preserve its position may find that his removal achieved the opposite, turning a popular minister into the face of the very opposition it hoped to prevent.
Ukraine cannot afford to dismantle its wartime innovation machine
Omar Ashour, United Kingdom
For six months, Mykhailo Fedorov played an unusual role in Ukraine's war effort. He combined Robert McNamara's focus on systems, Lord Beaverbrook's drive for wartime industrial mobilization, and Sir David Stirling's instinct for unconventional warfare. More importantly, he brought together front-line feedback, procurement, software, industry, and military operations into a system that helped Ukraine adapt while fighting for its survival.
That is why the protests following his dismissal deserve to be heard.
Soldiers, veterans, and civilians are asking a reasonable question: Will the reforms that finally began producing results survive another abrupt leadership change? Public pressure is legitimate, especially when the government has offered little explanation for interrupting successful reforms during wartime. But that pressure should focus on demanding transparency, protecting the reforms that work, and holding military leaders accountable — not on deciding the commander-in-chief through public demonstrations.
Fedorov deserves credit above all as the official who helped turn these reforms into lasting institutions, but this was never his achievement alone. Drone advocate Maria Berlinska has argued that the story is more complex than a clash between a technology-minded minister and an old-school commander.
She notes that General Oleksandr Syrskyi also supported FPV-drone training, unmanned ground systems, and, together with Fedorov, backed Robert "Madyar" Brovdi to lead the Unmanned Systems Forces. Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi has likewise called for reform, suggesting that Ukraine's military modernization has been driven by a broader coalition, not by one person alone.
Moscow does not need to invent every disagreement in Ukraine; it can masterfully amplify the ones that already exist. Telegram channels quickly shifted from demanding Fedorov's return to demanding Syrskyi's removal. That is why public pressure should remain focused: press the government to protect successful reforms and explain its decisions, while avoiding narratives that undermine confidence in Ukraine's entire officer corps or turn military appointments into political contests.
Ukraine cannot afford to choose between military leadership and technological reform, as it needs both.
The priority should be preserving the institutions that work, keeping reformers and commanders pulling in the same direction, publishing as much evidence as wartime conditions allow, and judging leaders by one standard above all: whether they continue to produce results on the battlefield.
Editor's note: The letters published in this section reflect the views of their authors alone and do not purport to represent the position of the Kyiv Independent. Got an opinion on anything you've read in the Kyiv Independent? Send it to [email protected]— your letter may appear in our Letters section.
Read also: Analysis: Why many Ukrainians feel Commander-in-Chief Syrskyi must go
