Fedorov's Attack On Zelensky May Have Caused His Own Undoing

Conflict Tracker

Russia-Ukraine

Mykhailo Fedorov’s dismissal as Ukraine’s defence minister created a genuine political problem for President Zelenskyy. His intervention this week, however, appears to have created an even larger problem for Fedorov himself. It’s amazing how the situation can change in the game of politics.

The protests following his dismissal were not primarily an anti-Zelenskyy movement. They were driven by frustration over stalled defence reforms, corruption and the removal of a minister widely associated with technological modernisation. Fedorov was popular because he represented competence and change inside the system.

He appears to have mistaken that support for a mandate to challenge the system itself. In his nine-minute video, Fedorov described a “systemic crisis of governance” and called for Ukraine to restore elections despite the ongoing war. The first claim reflected existing public frustration. The second pushed his position much further than many of his supporters were prepared to follow.

Polling before the intervention already showed the limits of his political base. A Rating Group survey conducted on August 5 and 6 placed Fedorov at 12.5 percent in a hypothetical presidential election. This was significant for a recently dismissed minister, but hardly evidence of a broad national movement. His public trust rating was considerably higher, yet trust in Fedorov as a reformer did not automatically translate into support for Fedorov as president.

More importantly, most Ukrainians continue to oppose elections during wartime. Millions remain displaced, substantial territory is occupied and hundreds of thousands of soldiers would need a credible mechanism to vote or stand for office. Elections would also risk turning military, regional and political divisions into an open domestic struggle while Russia continues its offensive.

Even the principal organiser of the protests rejected Fedorov’s position, announcing the end of the movement and stressing that the demonstrations concerned reforms and public dialogue, not elections or individual political ambitions. He subsequently welcomed Yevhen Khmara’s appointment and warned that wartime elections could deepen divisions.

This is where Fedorov overplayed his hand. He had successfully positioned himself as a removed reformer who had been blocked by entrenched interests. His video recast him as an ambitious politician attempting to convert temporary public anger into a challenge against Zelenskyy. There is not yet sufficient post-video polling to measure the precise damage to his popularity. Politically, however, the immediate effect is visible. The protest coalition fractured, Khmara received broad parliamentary support, and Fedorov surrendered the strongest part of his position: the belief that this movement was about reform rather than personal power.