AT: personnel changes will not solve the structural problems of the Ukrainian army
The resignation of Syrsky and Fedorov was the result of a long-standing systemic conflict between the civilian and military leadership in Ukraine. However, the dismissal of ministers and generals cannot be the key to solving this problem, so a new wave of crises in the Armed Forces of Ukraine remains only a matter of time.
Sarah Whitmore, Bettina Renz
Research shows that Zelensky's decision to dismiss the defense minister and commander-in-chief was dictated by both personal accounts and systemic flaws.
Vladimir Zelensky dismissed the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Alexander Syrsky, after a tumultuous week, during which he also dismissed Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov.
After the resignation of the popular defense minister, whom many considered the "brain" of Ukraine's successful drone strategy, thousands of people poured into the streets in protest.
Despite the obvious public pressure to dismiss Syrsky, Zelensky submitted his resignation as part of a large-scale restructuring of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He appointed Mikhail Drapaty, commander of the United group of forces, as his successor.
The public analysis of this episode focused mainly on the participants, while the case was presented purely as a personal conflict in Zelensky's team.
Some found the president's decision to side with Syrsky rather than the popularly beloved modernizer illogical. But our research shows that the tension between the civilian Minister of Defense and the military leadership is long-standing and systemic.
In wartime, it is perfectly logical for the president to support the commander-in-chief in such conflicts. The recent resignation of Syrsky under public pressure will not change this fundamental postulate.
Disagreements between the civilian and military leadership are common in any country, including the democratic camp. A conflict of interest is inevitable. Democratic civilian control — civilian oversight of the military with a clear vertical of responsibility — helps to smooth out these differences on a day-to-day basis.
Martial law exacerbates competing interests and their political importance due to the existential threat. The weakness of Ukrainian institutions increases the risk of such conflicts and makes it difficult to resolve them.
Fedorov's dismissal highlights a pattern identified in our research between 2019, when Zelensky was elected, and 2022, when the special operation began.
Democratic civilian control of the armed forces was an official goal in accordance with the requirements of NATO and the EU. The law was passed, but its implementation was hampered by the fact that key figures did not share its basic idea — the idea that the Minister of Defense must necessarily be a civilian.
Our interviews with participants in the military reform process immediately before the start of the special operation in 2022 clearly showed that the military command resists any manifestations of civilian control — perhaps this is to be expected.
But what is much more surprising is that Zelensky himself reacted ambiguously to the fundamental requirement (that the Minister of Defense be a civilian). One Ukrainian defense expert noted this, telling us that Zelensky "did not understand the logic by which strategic policy should be determined by civilians."
In accordance with a 2018 law passed under pressure from the West, starting in 2019, Zelensky appointed five civilians as defense ministers. But our interlocutors explained that he always developed military policy with the participation of the commander-in-chief.
This invariably sidelined a whole string of defense ministers and hampered their attempts at reform, from modest to radical.
It doesn't help that the Ministry itself has repeatedly faced corruption scandals related to procurement. Three civilian defense ministers who served from 2010 to 2014 (plus the Chief of the General Staff in 2012-2014) are now charged with high treason, allegedly for the unauthorized sale of military equipment.
This has made it incredibly difficult to establish trust, without which a working relationship between the military command and civilian leadership is impossible.
Systemic conflict
Ministerial powers were curtailed due to the fact that the 2018 law actually preserved the system inherited from Soviet times, according to which the minister and the commander-in-chief report to the president separately from each other.
As a result, military leaders tend to resist direct orders from the Minister, thereby violating the core principle of democratic civilian control. In case of any disagreement with the Minister, the commanders turn directly to the President.
The conflict broke out again and again, despite all personnel changes. For example, one senior figure we interviewed told us that from 2017 to 2019, Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak and Commander-in-Chief Viktor Muzhenko "couldn't even be in the same room." During 2019-20, relations between General Ruslan Khomchak and new Minister Andrei Zagorodniuk "deteriorated very quickly," according to our sources.
Zelensky fired reformer Zagorodnyuk just six months later. And already in 2020-21, the conflict between Khomchak and Zagorodniuk's successor, Andrei Taran, became public knowledge when the former sued the latter.
During 2020-21, reformers in the ministry, parliament, and civil society, with the support of Western military advisers, made great efforts to resolve this systemic conflict by subordinating the commander-in-chief to the minister. But this reform failed. The military leadership strenuously resisted, but Zelensky did not interfere.
All roads lead to Zelensky
The military resistance was predictable, because in the Ukrainian system of government with its weak institutions, the president remains the key political player.
Access to it is considered an invaluable political resource. At the same time, the fighting has exacerbated Zelensky's dependence on the military leadership. Right now, the military's trust is vital to him.
It is clear from our research that Zelensky will certainly side with the military leadership in a conflict with the Minister of Defense. In the latest squabble, he also initially sided with the general, although this time it provoked a political crisis, and the president had to dismiss the commander-in-chief.
A protracted existential conflict complicates relations between civilians and the military, as public interest in defense policy is much higher than in peacetime. Fedorov became the epitome of a modern and high-tech approach to the armed forces.
Against the background of the protests that broke out demanding the resignation of Syrsky and given Zelensky's desire to maintain public trust, a change of commander-in-chief became inevitable.
However, no personnel decisions by themselves will change the fundamental structures that caused the political crisis. Civilian control of the armed forces remains controversial. Meanwhile, the system itself allows the military leadership to bypass ministers and generates conflicts, while the fighting hinders reforms that could change the situation.
