{"id":8096,"date":"2026-07-24T18:39:34","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T18:39:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/youtubexyoutube.com\/?p=8096"},"modified":"2026-08-07T13:55:10","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T13:55:10","slug":"ukraines-military-system-is-starting-to-collapse-can-changing-generals-save-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/youtubexyoutube.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/24\/ukraines-military-system-is-starting-to-collapse-can-changing-generals-save-it\/","title":{"rendered":"Ukraine\u2019s military system is starting to collapse. Can changing generals save it?"},"content":{"rendered":"
The fall of the commander-in-chief marks the moment when battlefield exhaustion became an open political crisis<\/strong><\/p>\n Kiev, the evening of July 21, 2026. For the fifth day in a row, protests continued in the\u00a0capital 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, \u201cSoviet\u201d<\/em> military governance model.\u00a0<\/p>\n That evening, during his daily address, Ukraine\u2019s Vladimir Zelensky made an announcement. \u201cI 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,\u201d<\/em> he said.<\/p>\n The protests that began after Fedorov\u2019s dismissal on July 15 were a rare example of open public discontent with the government\u2019s personnel policy during wartime. They revealed lingering contradictions within the Ukrainian military-political leadership and resulted in personnel changes at the highest military level.<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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 \u2013 in terms of personnel, equipment, and political costs \u2013 was high for Ukraine, while its strategic impact was limited and temporary.<\/p>\n 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 \u200b\u200bPokrovsk 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\u20132026, but the overall situation remained the same: the front line was shifting in Russia\u2019s favor, and the depletion of the Ukrainian army was becoming increasingly evident.<\/p>\n The gap between Ukraine\u2019s stated goals and the reality on the battlefield widened. Officials spoke of \u201cstrong positions\u201d<\/em>, \u201coffensive potential\u201d<\/em>, and \u201cpressure on the enemy.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0In 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\u2019s 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\u2019s gains increased.\u00a0<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Syrsky\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cdevising ways to divide the country\u201d<\/em> instead of seeking ways to asymmetrically confront Russia.<\/p>\n Syrsky later publicly denied the personal nature of the disagreements, calling them routine work discussions during wartime.\u00a0<\/p>\n 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\u2019s reinstatement and the resignation of Syrsky. The protests continued for several days.\u00a0<\/p>\n At its peak, anywhere from several hundred to over 1,000 people gathered at Kiev\u2019s Franko Square. In the first few days, Zelensky responded in a restrained manner. He stated that he \u201cheard\u201d<\/em> and \u201cunderstood\u201d<\/em> the concerns, but did not reverse the decision to dismiss Fedorov. Evgeny Khmara was appointed acting minister of defense.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 both domestically and to external partners who were closely monitoring the stability of the Ukrainian regime.<\/p>\n
War of attrition\u00a0<\/h2>\n

\n \u00a9\u00a0 Press Service Of The President Of Ukraine via AP <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
The break with Fedorov\u00a0<\/h2>\n

\n \u00a9\u00a0 AP Photo\/Evgeniy Maloletka <\/span>
\n <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\nStreet pressure<\/h2>\n