The resignation of Ukraine’s Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov brought to light a conflict that had been developing within the Ukrainian military-political leadership for a long time. At the center of the confrontation were Fedorov’s relations with the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Oleksandr Syrskyi, differing views on conducting the war, defense procurement, and control over the distribution of the enormous military budget.
Published on July 18, 2026, by The New York Times.
According to the American publication, one of the main reasons for the conflict was Fedorov’s attempt to redirect more resources to drones and robotic systems. Oleksandr Syrskyi, on the contrary, insisted on continuing large purchases of artillery ammunition necessary for the Ukrainian army for heavy positional battles in the east of the country.
However, the story turned out to be significantly more complex than a usual dispute over whether it is better to fight with drones or artillery.
Behind Volodymyr Zelensky’s personnel decision was a protracted conflict between two centers of Ukraine’s defense management, which by mid-July had practically ceased to interact normally.
Six months at the head of the Ministry of Defense
Mykhailo Fedorov headed Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense on January 14, 2026.
Before that, he led the Ministry of Digital Transformation, participated in the creation of the state application “Diia”, the launch of the “Army of Drones” project, the expansion of Starlink usage, and the development of the Ukrainian market for unmanned systems, electronic warfare means, ground robots, and missiles.
Fedorov came to the defense department with a reputation as a technological reformer.
He intended to restructure the cumbersome military procurement system, accelerate the delivery of weapons to combat units, and use battlefield data to determine which drones and other systems truly show results.
Reuters notes that Fedorov tried to apply an approach to the army based on technology, measurable efficiency, and quick decision-making. This inevitably led him to clash with the existing military bureaucracy and high command.
But just six months after his appointment, he lost his position.
During a government reshuffle, Fedorov’s candidacy was not included in the new Cabinet of Ministers. Yevhen Khmara, who previously served as acting head of the Security Service of Ukraine, was appointed as acting Minister of Defense.
The conflict between Fedorov and Syrskyi came to the surface
After the decision on his resignation, Fedorov publicly accused Oleksandr Syrskyi of blocking the Ministry of Defense’s initiatives, backstage intrigues, and deliberate sabotage of reforms.
According to the former minister, at the beginning of his work, he proposed to Zelensky to replace the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the Chief of the General Staff.
The president then refused.
Fedorov claims that after this, he agreed to try to establish joint work with the military leadership, but the initiatives proposed by the Ministry of Defense were systematically blocked. He also stated that Syrskyi avoided direct and open discussions about the accumulated problems.
Fedorov, however, did not deny the military merits of the Commander-in-Chief. In particular, he acknowledged Syrskyi’s role in the defense of Kyiv in 2022.
His complaints primarily related to the existing culture of army management, attitude towards servicemen, inability to quickly implement new solutions, and resistance to changes.
Volodymyr Zelensky himself also acknowledged that the conflict existed and reached a level where the Minister of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief could not interact normally without the president’s mediation.
According to sources in Ukrainian media, Zelensky considered it unacceptable for the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff to effectively fight each other during the war.
Drones versus artillery shells
The most high-profile part of the story is related to defense procurement.
The New York Times claims that Fedorov blocked some purchases of artillery ammunition, seeking to redirect the freed-up funds to drones.
Syrskyi, according to this version, considered such a decision dangerous. Despite the rapid development of drones, Ukrainian troops continue to engage in heavy ground battles where artillery remains one of the main means of fire support.
Fedorov acknowledged that he canceled or revised some tenders for the purchase of 155-millimeter NATO-standard artillery shells. He also suspended contracts for certain types of short-range ammunition.
According to the former minister, the review of these purchases saved about 100 million dollars. At the same time, he claimed that Ukraine continued to purchase long-range artillery ammunition and did not intend to completely abandon artillery.
A representative of one of the Ukrainian defense enterprises reported that military contractors received letters about the cessation of some shell purchases. It was assumed that the army could temporarily use existing stocks while expanding the use of drones.
This is where the main question arose.
The General Staff determines the army’s needs for weapons based on the situation at the front. The Ministry of Defense is responsible for financing, contracts, and the actual acquisition of weapons.
If the ministry begins to review the military command’s requests, it effectively gains the ability to influence not only contract prices but also the very strategy of the war.
Fedorov did not propose to completely abandon artillery
The public description of the conflict as a choice between artillery and drones simplifies the situation.
As early as June 24, 2026, Fedorov named among Ukraine’s main needs air defense, the expansion of drone and missile production, as well as long-range strike capabilities.
Thus, it was probably not about a complete abandonment of traditional weapons, but about the redistribution of the defense budget.
Fedorov wanted to direct more money to drones, robotic systems, digital management, and units capable of proving their effectiveness.
Syrskyi and his supporters feared that an excessively rapid transition to such a model could leave frontline units without the necessary amount of shells, equipment, and personnel.
In essence, the parties argued about the pace and scale of the army’s technological restructuring.
What results did Fedorov present
Before leaving office, Fedorov named 22 achievements of the Ministry of Defense during his leadership.
Among them are the expansion of purchases of FPV drones, fiber-optic drones, interceptor drones, ground robotic complexes, and long-range strike systems. The ministry also developed a support program for modern drone-assault units.
According to the department, Ukrainian units from the beginning of 2026 to June 22 confirmed more than 800,000 hits on Russian targets using drones.
Already on July 17, the Ministry of Defense reported that the number of Russian targets hit by drones exceeded one million. On the same day, the department announced the signing of contracts for drones worth more than 333 billion hryvnias in the first half of the year.
These figures are published by the Ministry of Defense itself and reflect the official assessment of the results of Fedorov’s team’s work.
There is no complete independent audit of the effectiveness of all programs yet. However, even critics of the former minister recognize his role in scaling up Ukrainian drone production and turning drones into one of the main elements of modern warfare.
Political version of the resignation
The TSN material also presents a political version of what happened.
A deputy from the “Holos” party, Mykola Davyduk, suggested that Fedorov’s growing popularity and the well-known drone program could have caused concerns in Volodymyr Zelensky’s political circle.
According to this version, presidential advisers could have portrayed Fedorov as a potentially independent and overly popular political figure.
The New York Times also recalled that Zelensky had previously dismissed the popular Commander-in-Chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, who was considered a possible competitor to the president in future elections.
Later, the head of military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov received a position in the presidential administration. Some analysts interpreted this as an attempt to keep a popular security official within the current political team.
However, there is no evidence that Fedorov was preparing his own political project or intended to participate in the presidential elections.
Therefore, political jealousy remains a version, not a confirmed reason for the resignation.
Why Zelensky retained Syrskyi
Volodymyr Zelensky was effectively faced with a choice between a reformist minister and the commander-in-chief of the active army.
Replacing Syrskyi during ongoing heavy fighting could have caused temporary disorganization of the entire military vertical.
Fedorov’s resignation also created serious risks but did not directly affect the system of operational command of the troops.
As a result, Zelensky retained Syrskyi and sacrificed the Minister of Defense.
This does not necessarily mean that the president fully supported the methods of the Commander-in-Chief. Rather, in the conditions of war, he chose to maintain the existing system of army management.
At the same time, Zelensky appointed Yevhen Khmara as acting Minister of Defense and stated the need to continue technological operations, develop unmanned systems, and maintain direct funding for combat units.
Thus, official Kyiv is trying to show that Fedorov’s resignation does not mean abandoning his technological course.
The resignation caused rare military protests
The decision to leave Fedorov led to protests, unusual for wartime Ukraine.
For two consecutive days, thousands of people gathered near the President’s Office in Kyiv. Participants demanded the resignation of Oleksandr Syrskyi and the return of Fedorov to the leadership of the defense system.
Among the protesters were veterans, relatives of servicemen, and supporters of the army’s technological modernization. Similar actions took place in other Ukrainian cities.
After Fedorov’s resignation, Deputy Commander of the Air Forces Pavlo Yelizarov, associated with the development of drone operations, submitted a resignation report.
Several high-ranking military officials also publicly supported the continuation of reforms.
The scale of the reaction showed that Ukrainian society perceived what happened not as an ordinary government reshuffle.
For many, the resignation became a symbol of the struggle between the new technological model of the army and the old military system, which is accused of excessive centralization, large losses, and resistance to change.
What really cost Fedorov his position
It cannot be asserted that Mykhailo Fedorov lost his post solely because of one canceled contract or a dispute over 155-millimeter shells.
A combination of factors led to the resignation.
First and foremost, it was a personal and managerial conflict with Oleksandr Syrskyi, which made normal interaction between the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff practically impossible.
The second factor was a different understanding of the future of the war. Fedorov tried to accelerate the transition to drones, robots, digital systems, and resource distribution based on proven effectiveness.
The military command continued to insist on the need for artillery, infantry, mobilization, and a traditional vertical of management.
Finally, Fedorov’s reforms affected the interests of major arms suppliers and the existing system of military budget distribution. The former minister himself stated that the review of procurements threatened the business interests of individual companies, but there is no independent evidence of organized pressure from the defense industry yet.
NANews — Israel News notes: Fedorov’s resignation was not the end of the conflict, but its public beginning.
Zelensky retained Syrskyi but simultaneously promised to continue the technological reforms associated with the name of the dismissed minister.
Now the main indicator will be not personnel statements, but the real decisions of the new leadership: whether the review of procurements will continue, whether support for effective drone units will be maintained, and whether the General Staff will gain full control over the distribution of defense funds.
The high-profile resignation showed that Ukraine faced not just a dispute between two leaders. The country must decide whether it can combine the traditional military system with a technological army — or whether the struggle for control over the war will continue under a new Minister of Defense.