Letters to the editor: 'Choosing politics over victory' and other reactions to Defense Minister Fedorov dismissal

This week's letters come from readers reflecting on the dismissal of former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov. 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 letters@kyivindependent.com — your letter may appear in our Letters section.

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 letters@kyivindependent.com— your letter may appear in our Letters section.