Ukraine was shaken this week by a series of political upheavals. One month after resigning as defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov addressed the nation in a nine-minute video published on his YouTube channel.
In the message, Fedorov argued that Ukraine “cannot remain without a fully appointed minister of defense,” but warned that “the main problem goes much deeper than one position or one ministry.” He identified the country’s gravest challenge as a “systemic crisis of governance,” describing corruption as merely a symptom. Fedorov also criticized the absence of national elections since 2019.
Hours earlier, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had nominated Yevhenii Khmara for the defense portfolio. Khmara had served as acting minister since July 20, and parliament confirmed his appointment on August 19.
Corruption Scandal Implicates High-Ranking Officials
When Fedorov spoke of corruption within government bodies, he may not have anticipated the scandal that would erupt the very next day. On August 19, Ukrainian anti-corruption investigators raided the premises of several senior officials, including Presidential Deputy Chief of Staff Iryna Mudra and lawmaker Vadym Stolar.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) announced it was “conducting a special operation to expose a criminal organization” in coordination with the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office.
Investigators allege the organization was led by a current and a former lawmaker and involved senior officials from the President’s Office. Zelenskyy dismissed Mudra from her post the same day.
In his video, Fedorov warned that “it is especially dangerous when society feels that the main criterion for appointing a person is not their professionalism, results, or ability […] but their personal loyalty to the system.” He called for a “legal, safe, and realistic mechanism” to hold elections, even if Russia’s war against Ukraine persists for a prolonged period.
Constitution Prohibits Wartime Elections
President Zelenskyy dismissed Fedorov as defense minister on July 15. Protests demanding his reinstatement erupted the following day in Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and other cities. Polls conducted by the Rating opinion research institute on July 20 and 21 showed trust in the former minister surging from 35% to 65% within the first week of demonstrations; 72% of respondents believed Fedorov should not have been sacked.
A poll conducted August 5–6 placed Fedorov third in presidential ratings with 12.5%. Zelenskyy led with 25.2%, followed by former Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi at 16.7%.
Ihor Chalenko, a political scientist at the Kyiv-based Center for Analysis and Strategies, views Fedorov’s address as an effort to consolidate the political capital gained during the protests. Although Fedorov did not present a comprehensive election platform, Chalenko believes he is positioning himself as an independent political actor capable of challenging Zelenskyy.
“For 35 days, people were out on the street. The demonstrations started with the demand that Fedorov be reinstated as minister of defense. But the fear is that the spotlight has moved on from Fedorov, because the protest campaign became increasingly focused on the fight against corruption and protecting the anti-corruption authorities. So the former minister has decided to position himself politically and secure the status he attained,” Chalenko told DW.
No Irreconcilable Opposition to the President?
However, Chalenko does not believe Fedorov has shifted to “irreconcilable opposition” against Zelenskyy. While a clear conflict exists between Fedorov and the president’s inner circle, Chalenko does not see this as a permanent rupture with the government, nor does he rule out Fedorov’s return should a position be offered.
Oleksiy Haran, a political science professor at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy, argues that Fedorov’s remarks on elections and the renewal of state power send a significant signal. Yet he, too, sees no decisive break with the president. “We haven’t heard any criticism at all of Zelenskyy,” he told DW.
Public Demand for Elections and Renewal
Haran contends that Fedorov’s speech articulates public sentiment. Polls indicate Ukrainians indeed desire a change in government. However, Haran highlights a structural dilemma: “We agree that Russia cannot dictate to us when and how we should hold elections. But the question is: how should we hold elections if Russia continues the war?”
He maintains that a stable ceasefire is a minimum prerequisite for credible elections—a condition Fedorov does not address in his remarks.
Vadym Denysenko, a political analyst at the Ukrainian think tank Business Capital, interprets Fedorov’s speech not as a solo campaign launch but as the opening move in a broader political game. In a Facebook post, Denysenko outlines two trends observed a month after Fedorov’s dismissal. First, the social milieu he terms “Self-Help 3.0″—encompassing the anti-corruption movement—has found a political leader in Fedorov. Second, some of Zelenskyy’s former supporters have defected to Fedorov, forming his most robust base.
Denysenko values Fedorov’s contribution to the debate on renewing state power, noting these themes mirror Zelenskyy’s own 2019 campaign platform. Although Fedorov does not explicitly declare candidacy in the video, Denysenko is confident his inner circle is working toward that goal.
In Denysenko’s assessment, they have little to lose. “If elections were to be held soon, Fedorov stands a good chance of doing well,” he says. “If there are no elections, they can strengthen his grassroots support, and further weaken Zelenskyy.”
This article was originally written in Ukrainian.
Also Read
- Pegula Overcomes Swiatek to Set Cincinnati Final Showdown With Gauff
- Report: Suspected Stabbing in West Bank Village; IDF Launches Investigation
- Racial Disparities in London’s Unsolved Murders Disproportionately Affect Non-White Communities
- Taiwan President Urges Resolve: Peace Through Unyielding Strength and Unity Against External Threats
