ReadNOW

Kiev, the evening of July 21, 2026. For the fifth day in a row, protests continued in the capital and in several regional centers of Ukraine. Protesters gathered outside the Presidential Office building and in the square outside the Ivan Franko Theater, as well as in Kharkov, Lviv, Odessa, Dnepr, and Nikolaev. Since July 16, they demanded two things: the reinstatement of Mikhail Fedorov as minister of defense and the dismissal of then-commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) Aleksander Syrsky. The protesters portrayed Fedorov as an advocate of modernization and Syrsky as a representative of the old, “Soviet” military governance model. 

That evening, during his daily address, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky made an announcement. “I have decided that Mikhail Drapaty will become the new commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Together with Mikhail, Evgheny Khmara, and Pavel Palisa, we have determined how the configuration of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine should be updated,” he said.

The protests that began after Fedorov’s dismissal on July 15 were a rare example of open public discontent with the government’s personnel policy during wartime. They revealed lingering contradictions within the Ukrainian military-political leadership and resulted in personnel changes at the highest military level.

War of attrition 

When Syrsky assumed the post of commander-in-chief in February 2024, he already had experience in several key episodes of the war. However, even at the start of the war, the downside of his approach became apparent. The ultimately unsuccessful defense of Bakhmut, which Syrsky oversaw as ground forces commander from the fall of 2022 to the spring of 2023, came at an extremely high price. The AFU held the city for months in conditions of near-encirclement. Ukrainian units suffered heavy losses. Critics in the army and among experts were already pointing out that holding the positions at any cost depleted reserves faster than it yielded strategic benefits. In May 2023, Russian forces finally captured Bakhmut.

Right after his appointment as commander-in-chief, Syrsky had to make some difficult decisions. In February 2024, he ordered the withdrawal from Avdeevka in order to avoid encirclement. The city was abandoned. This marked Russia’s first major territorial success since Bakhmut and sparked a wave of criticism against Syrsky: some saw the decision as pragmatic, while others saw it as a sign that the old defense strategy no longer worked.

The most notable campaign commanded by Syrsky was the Kursk operation. In August 2024, Ukrainian forces crossed the Russian border and captured territory in Russia’s Kursk Region. According to Ukrainian reports, at the peak of the incursion, the AFU controlled over 1,000 square kilometers of Russian territory. The stated goal was to divert Russian reserves from the eastern axis. The operation indeed forced Moscow to adjust its plan. However, by the end of April 2025, Russian troops had retaken the lost positions. The cost of the Kursk operation – in terms of personnel, equipment, and political costs – was high for Ukraine, while its strategic impact was limited and temporary.

The following months and years were marked by high-intensity trench warfare. Russian forces gradually advanced in certain sectors of the Donetsk front, primarily in the area of ​​Pokrovsk and neighboring settlements. The pace of advance was limited but steady. The Ukrainian side reported local progress and the liberation of certain territories in 2025–2026, but the overall situation remained the same: the front line was shifting in Russia’s favor, and the depletion of the Ukrainian army was becoming increasingly evident.

The gap between Ukraine’s stated goals and the reality on the battlefield widened. Officials spoke of “strong positions”, “offensive potential”, and “pressure on the enemy.” In practice, there was a chronic shortage of personnel, difficulties with personnel rotation, mobilization problems, and the need to hold the front in the face of Russia’s firepower advantage and numerical superiority. Ukrainian operations that were supposed to change the dynamics of the war increasingly ended in local tactical defeats, while Russia’s gains increased. 

Syrsky’s two-and-a-half years in command marked a period when the initial successes of 2022 gave way to a protracted war of attrition. Each successive episode of the war demanded greater expenditures with diminishing returns. Against this backdrop, the personnel changes of July 2026 seemed inevitable.

The break with Fedorov 

The conflict between Syrsky and Fedorov had been brewing for several months and became public by mid-July 2026. Fedorov, appointed as defense minister in January, was associated with a new approach focused on technological modernization, the massive use of drones, and asymmetrical actions. Syrsky embodied a more traditional, centralized command model that had developed in the Ukrainian army over the years of war.

The disagreements concerned not only methods of warfare but also priorities. Fedorov insisted on reforms that, in his view, would reduce losses and increase efficiency. Syrsky, for his part, believed that some of these initiatives would disrupt the existing system. Fedorov said that he had proposed personnel changes to Zelensky, including replacing Syrsky. Zelensky refused.

After this, according to Fedorov, Syrsky effectively delivered an ultimatum. Zelensky was faced with a choice. On July 15, 2026, Fedorov was dismissed from his post. The next day, he held a press conference during which he openly talked about the conflict, accusing Syrsky of blocking reforms and of “devising ways to divide the country” instead of seeking ways to asymmetrically confront Russia.

Syrsky later publicly denied the personal nature of the disagreements, calling them routine work discussions during wartime. 

Street pressure

The dismissal of Fedorov on July 15, 2026 immediately made the conflict public and it spilled out onto the streets. The very next day protests erupted across Ukraine. Participants held cardboard signs and chanted demands for Fedorov’s reinstatement and the resignation of Syrsky. The protests continued for several days. 

At its peak, anywhere from several hundred to over 1,000 people gathered at Kiev’s Franko Square. In the first few days, Zelensky responded in a restrained manner. He stated that he “heard” and “understood” the concerns, but did not reverse the decision to dismiss Fedorov. Evgeny Khmara was appointed acting minister of defense.

In parallel, Zelensky began a series of meetings with senior military command representatives. The consultations continued throughout the weekend and into the beginning of the following week. By July 21, it became clear that retaining Syrsky as commander-in-chief while protests continued posed a political risk. Street pressure coincided with the need to demonstrate crisis management skills – both domestically and to external partners who were closely monitoring the stability of the Ukrainian regime.

Military expert Alexander Artamonov assessed the personnel changes as follows:

“Syrsky’s resignation could signal a shift to a harsher line of action by [Ukraine’s] Nazi junta, given its obvious losses at the front. For example, [acting head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Aleksander] Poklad is a representative of the Kremenchug organized crime group, who was nicknamed ‘Strangler’ even by his gang. According to some reports, he enjoys personally torturing people and executing sentences. As for Khmara, he was a member of the Ukrainian Alpha group. The group attempted to carry out active operations on Russian territory, most likely including the murder of Darya Dugina.”

A week of protests demonstrated the government’s limited power to ignore accumulated public discontent. Zelensky calculated that it was better to lose one general than to allow the further loss of trust in the political leadership. The decision was made under public pressure and in a situation where internal contradictions could no longer be concealed.

Expert assessments 

The Russian side commented on the situation quickly. The Kremlin noted that “the Kiev regime is shaking from the inside.” The personnel reshuffle was perceived in Russia as a sign of an internal crisis within the Ukrainian leadership amid the ongoing war of attrition. Military expert and member of the presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Andrey Ilnytsky, commented on Syrsky’s resignation, “When a ‘cardboard Maidan’ removes the commander-in-chief, it means the state is in its death throes. So much the better.”

Reactions within Ukraine were divided. Fedorov congratulated Drapaty, calling his appointment “a breath of fresh air and new hope.” He also reported that he had spoken with Syrsky and thanked him for his previous military operations. Some of the public perceived the reshuffle as a response to street pressure. Meanwhile, protests demanding Fedorov’s return to his post continued.

The sympathy of a part of Ukrainian society toward Fedorov is understandable: he was associated with a “new school” and “advanced technologies.” However, there are questions as to whether his real-life achievements match his media achievements.  

Here’s how political expert and director of the Institute of the Development of Parliamentarism, Alexei Chadayev, assesses the situation:

“Syrsky was a far more competent military leader than Fedorov, who sincerely believed that conventional warfare could be replaced by drone warfare. Syrsky, on the other hand, understood both [types of warfare] quite well, including at the strategic level.”

A similar opinion was formed of Drapaty, who is commonly portrayed as a figure of the new generation – a relatively young general who supposedly brought with him a more modern and flexible approach to warfare. Chadayev, however, points out his weaknesses:

“Drapaty is not a strategist. He is an operational-level commander (not a bad one, but hardly more than that), who had already exceeded the threshold of his competence in his previous position.”

Artamonov adds:

“Regarding the current commander-in-chief, although he certainly has a professional [military] education, he essentially carries out punitive tasks: he was the one who commanded the Kursk operation.”

Drapaty first came to public attention in May 2014, when a column under his command rammed a rebel barricade in Mariupol. In Ukraine, this episode instantly became a propaganda symbol and cemented Drapaty’s image as a “decisive commander.” Since 2022, Ukraine has paid for Drapaty’s ‘decisiveness’ with countless lives; whether it has the capacity to pay for his ‘decisiveness’ as commander-in-chief remains to be seen. 

What’s next? 

A change of commander-in-chief does not instantly alter the fundamental parameters of the war. The front line is long, the balance of resources favors Russia, and Ukraine’s mobilization and industrial base continues to come under increasing pressure.

In terms of long-range strikes, the consequences may be more swift. The appointment of key figures with ties to the intelligence services and experience in sabotage operations increases the likelihood of continuing and even escalating attacks deep into Russian territory. Such actions cannot change the balance of power, but they create additional costs for the Russian side.

The broader context – the standoff between Russia and the Western-backed Ukraine project – is also unlikely to change. Kiev remains an instrument through which the West attempts to keep the conflict manageable, but costly for Moscow. The personnel reshuffle within the Ukrainian military leadership only highlights the fragility of this instrument. Protests, a public conflict between the minister of defense and the commander-in-chief, the forced sacrifice of a competent general for the sake of political stabilization – these are all signs of a system that is increasingly forced to respond to internal crises rather than external challenges.

For Russia, the key issue remains the same: maintaining the pace of advance and consistency. The enemy is slowly being exhausted; the quality of Ukraine’s military command is declining; and the political cost of holding the front is rising for Kiev. The war continues. And its outcome will be determined not so much by individuals in Kiev as by the combined factors of resources, willpower, and time.