By Melik Kaylan
In my previous article, I argued that Vladimir Putin is heading for the fall, as long as events continue to develop in the same direction. This course has not been completely reversed. But it has changed significantly. This is because the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, has decided to dismiss the extremely popular 35-year-old Minister of Defense, Mikhail Fedorov, after just six months in office — six highly successful months.
As is now known internationally, protests broke out in almost all major cities of Ukraine, centered on Kiev. On social media and podcasts, there was a wave of strong criticism, even from front-line soldiers. Threats of retaliation were then reported against those who publicly expressed their displeasure. The turmoil continues.
In summary, Fedorov is largely credited with reversing the course of the war in favour of Ukraine. Under his guidance, the massive use of drones was carried out and the resulting military advantages were exploited: the interception of the Russian offensive in the summer, the destruction of Russian supply lines and refineries, the isolation of Crimea, drone attacks on Moscow and much more. In the collective consciousness, these successes are directly linked to Fedorov's intransigent campaign against corruption in the armed forces, which targeted the old military elite.
It is therefore not surprising that public opinion, protest slogans and comments on the internet highlighted the head of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Alexander Syrsky (60), as the man who allegedly demanded Fedorov's removal behind the scenes. The outcry was so intense that the Financial Times reported that Zelensky himself is now even considering removing Syrsky.
The Ukrainian army has experienced the failures and dark side of the war: the failure of the 2023 offensive, the loss of cities and provinces, corruption in supplies, allegations of sadistic treatment and torture of soldiers, the approximately 200.000 deserters and other similar phenomena. Syrsky is seen as a representative of the old guard and Soviet military concepts inherited by the Ukrainian armed forces — perceptions that many hold responsible for these problems.
Because similar pathologies characterize the Russian army to an even greater extent, Ukrainians have adopted the pessimistic slogan: "A small Soviet army will never defeat a large Soviet army." At the same time, more and more stories are circulating about Syrski's alleged vindictiveness towards soldiers and officers who challenge him. Indicative is the position of the well-known Ukrainian YouTuber Denis Davydov, who deals extensively with these issues.
Syrsky received his basic military training in Russia. He is of Russian origin and all his relatives live there. Since 2019, he has held top positions in the leadership of the Ukrainian army. It is not surprising, therefore, that many hold him responsible for maintaining chronic dysfunctions and go even further, formulating conspiracy theories: that he is not seeking real victory but a prolonged attrition, that Zelensky is keeping him in place to prolong the war and avoid elections, or even that the two are working together to protect themselves, cover up past corruption cases and preserve the last remnants of the oligarchic system that Ukraine has been struggling with since its independence.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Fedorov case dealt a serious blow to the morale of Ukrainians, which was already being tested by the constant nighttime ballistic missile attacks against urban areas, buses, markets and apartment buildings — against every aspect of a normal life.
Until recently, the conflict seemed to be evolving into a race between the collapse of Ukrainian society and the collapse of Putin's power. More and more people believed that the latter would precede, as Russia was receiving strikes in Crimea, drone attacks on Moscow, fuel shortages, etc.
The Ukrainians could hold out as long as they maintained the hope of victory. They could endure deprivation because they saw light at the end of the journey. But with Fedorov's removal, with the Russians attacking on one side and their own leadership undermining — in the perception of many — the successful course on the other, this hope suddenly seems to be fading.
Both in society and in the armed forces, a turn to almost fatalistic patience can now be discerned: there is a sense of endless war and an incessant trial. In his video, Denis Davydov captures this climate. From the 18th minute, he quotes the post of a front-line soldier, a veteran of both the current and previous conflicts with Russia, who expresses his disappointment at Fedorov's removal. He refers to his reforms, the explosive increase in drones, but mainly to the feeling that he was betrayed by generals of the Soviet school.
It is worthwhile, at this point, to briefly explain what we mean by the term "Soviet characteristics", which constantly recurs in the public debate. Their main feature is considered to be the priority of personal faith over ability. Even Fedorov himself, in his public message after his dismissal, left clear spikes in this direction, indirectly criticizing Syrsky.
Other problems arise from this mentality, according to its critics: deep resistance to reforms, opacity that favours corruption, authoritarian administration from top to bottom, without meaningful listening to the people on the front line, their complaints, proposals or innovations.
The technological revolution that Fedorov attempted—replacing humans with machines where possible, saving human lives, and boosting the initiative of drone operators—directly challenged this mindset. At the same time, his effort to digitize the conduct of warfare, essentially inaugurating a new model of war organization, introduced unprecedented levels of transparency, where performance on the front line could now be measured and rewarded. In other words, meritocracy instead of blind submission.
This, at least, is the main narrative of the critics of the current military leadership. Of course, this perception questions fundamental principles of war history, from antiquity to the present day: the cohesion of the unit through common hardships, absolute discipline and strict hierarchy. Syrski is a career military man, shaped by these traditions — as much as they are considered outdated by many. Fedorov, on the contrary, is primarily a technocrat.
It is still too early to know whether the new way of conducting the war undermines the traditional conditions of combat and the cohesion of troops. But it is clear that it has proven to be effective in the face of the outdated and ineffective practices that characterize the Russian army.
For the time being, Zelensky has offered Fedorov the position of presidential adviser, as well as a role as the head of high-tech in the armed forces. Fedorov rejected both proposals.
His influence over the past six months has been so great that his future course may affect not only Ukraine and Russia, but also Europe, perhaps even the entire international environment. However, at the time of writing, the prevailing impression is that the Ukrainian leadership has turned a victory dynamic into a political defeat and, at the same time, suspended — albeit temporarily — the path to, in my estimation, the inevitable downfall of Putin
