Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov called for holding elections in the country. According to him, Ukrainian democracy cannot be held hostage by Russia. Fedorov served as Minister of Defense from January to July 2026. Vladimir Zelensky fired him, as reported, due to a conflict with the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Alexander Syrsky, who was also later fired. From the moment of Fedorov’s dismissal until now, protests have been taking place in Ukrainian cities demanding his return to the post of minister.
What's happening in Ukraine? Is it possible to hold elections as Fedorov wants? And are the positions of President Zelensky strengthened or weakened due to the popularity of the former minister and new anti-corruption investigations in Ukraine?
The host of the BBC Russian Service podcast “What Was That,” Oleg Antonenko, discussed these issues with columnist Konstantin Skorkin, who follows Ukrainian politics.
Who is Mikhail Fedorov?
BBC: At the very beginning of the podcast, it would be useful to remind you who Mikhail Fedorov is and what you need to know about him.
Konstantin Skorkin: In short, he is a young IT businessman, born in 1991, the same age as independent Ukraine. He did business in Zaporozhye, in 2019 he joined Vladimir Zelensky’s team and oversaw the IT sector at Zelensky’s headquarters during the elections.
After the victory, Zelensky first appointed him as his adviser on IT technology issues, and then, when the first government under Zelensky was formed, Fedorov received the post of Minister of Digitalization. He was supposed to implement one of Zelensky’s promises: “the power at the smartphone” (“the state in the smartphone”), about the digitalization of government services.
He did this successfully and subsequently held the post of Deputy Prime Minister for Digitalization.
His main achievement is the Ukrainian application “Diya”. This is an electronic version of administrative services, which was very useful during a full-scale war, when masses of people were on the move, some turned out to be refugees, some were displaced persons, and the digital system for providing administrative services greatly simplified everyone’s life and helped to avoid administrative chaos.
Since the beginning of the full-scale war, Fedorov has been directly involved in defense issues; he oversaw the “Army of Drones” project, thanks to which the unmanned sector was developed in Ukraine. A lot of other interesting things were done: for example, a marketplace with military technologies, so that units could directly purchase some technical items.
In January 2026, he became defense minister, but did not serve long in this post and was dismissed, which sparked protests in Ukraine. And now he has made a demarche, made a resonant statement about the need to hold elections during the war.
What is the secret of Fedorov's popularity?
BBC: This is not his first resonant statement. It is probably worth mentioning that when he was appointed, he stated that one of Ukraine’s strategic goals in the war was to destroy up to 50 thousand Russian occupiers per month in order to make the war unsustainable for Russia. Probably, Ukrainian activity in 2026 and increasing influence on Russia with the help of drones can be associated with it.
You have already said that Fedorov is very popular, but it is also important to understand why, and exactly why his resignation led to protests in Ukraine, because throughout the war, other resignations, including the resignation of the super-popular commander-in-chief Zaluzhny, did not lead to such actions, but here people have been protesting for several months in a row and, apparently, are not going to end the protests.
K.S.: First of all, it is worth noting that Fedorov is popular among the most active part of society - among young people and their civically active part, let’s say. He is the same age as these young people, he speaks the same language with them. His program to modernize the Armed Forces of Ukraine based on high technologies was popular. His idea was that we would fight technologically: we do not have as many people as Putin can field, but we have brains, we have technology, and we can resist him in this direction, more technological and modern.
All this created for him the image of a reformer, a visionary, a man who sees in a new way how Ukrainian defense should work. All this added additional popularity to him.
If we compare it with the resignation of [ex-commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery] Zaluzhny, which also caused outrage, but this indignation did not spill over into protests - since that time, the social climate in the country has already changed greatly, patience in society began to run out, and therefore it began to spill out, including onto the streets.
This protest is a direct continuation of last year’s summer protests against restrictions on the powers of NABU. The authorities crossed a line that turned out to be unacceptable, especially for the active young part of society, which was the driving force of the protests even then.
Why didn’t the protests change Zelensky’s decision to fire Fedorov?
BBC: NABU is the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, which conducts investigations into the highest echelons of Ukrainian government. After the summer protests last year, Zelensky responded: he restored the powers of NABU. Why is there not the same reaction from Zelensky now to the protests demanding the return of Fedorov to the post of Minister of Defense?
K.S.: It seems to me that Zelensky feels this as a kind of red line for himself. If he gives in in this case, it will be a serious damage to him as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, because he now considers issues of war and defense as his priority and as, roughly speaking, a justification for the fact that he has been in power for so long. There is a war going on, he is fighting a war, this is a legitimizing factor for him, and concessions on such issues are obviously unacceptable to him.
Plus, the situation with NABU has also acquired an international context, because NABU and other anti-corruption bodies work, let’s say, in close conjunction with European structures, this is part of the process of European integration, one of the conditions that was set for Ukraine: the creation of these bodies to defeat top-level corruption. And the situation with Fedorov, although it caused bewilderment among the allies, is a purely internal Ukrainian matter, no one interferes much here.
Zelensky does not intend to retreat on this issue, and this was clear almost from the very beginning. If on the issue of Syrsky’s resignation there were doubts whether he would agree to this - the protesters also demanded his [Syrsky’s] resignation, then on the Fedorov issue it was obvious that Zelensky would not give in.
BBC: It seems that Syrsky’s resignation was precisely a reaction to the protests: they say, I’m coming to meet you halfway, I’m doing this act of dismissal, so you should be happy that I’m not on anyone’s side in this conflict.
K.S.: Yes.
What did Fedorov say in his address?
BBC: Let's now talk about what Fedorov said in his video message about the elections. What kind of appeal was this, what exactly did Fedorov say and what did you pay attention to?
K.S. There were several semantic points. Firstly, he said that the country needs to renew its government. That there is corruption, there are serious problems in management, including in defense management, that loyalty is put above professionalism, and therefore the country needs serious renewal. Renewal can be carried out through elections; holding elections during a war is an internal matter of Ukraine, and in this case, Russian aggression should not affect the fate of democracy in Ukraine, and opportunities must be found to hold these elections. Everyone around says that this is impossible, but the Ukrainians have proven many times lately that the impossible is possible for them, and this may be the case when they will demonstrate it again. As I understand it, this is a hint at his technological developments: elections can be held online, electronic voting can be done.
I paid attention first of all to the fact that Fedorov was removing the taboo from the topic of elections during the war, because before that such a formulation of the issue was equated with the promotion of Kremlin narratives. Now this is said by a man who is a symbol of Ukrainian defense, and here it is already very difficult to blame him for this; with his authority he decided to push this topic, as it were, to throw it into public discourse.
And the second point: the political technological approach, of course, was chosen correctly - from the point of view of showing: the elections are not a consequence of Russian pressure, but, on the contrary, an attempt to save democracy. And Russia should not tell Ukrainians when to hold elections.
Despite all the controversy, this is a good approach that will at least make people think and accept this point of view, and not reject it outright.
Because before this, a firm opinion had already been established that elections were possible only after the war, and everything else was some kind of enemy machinations.
Therefore, here Fedorov opens a big topic, a big season and, I repeat, removes the taboo from the topic of elections during the war.
Why did Fedorov avoid direct criticism of Zelensky?
BBC: Do you think he deliberately avoided direct criticism of Zelensky in this address, without calling him by name, and seemed to be talking about the situation in principle, that elections are needed?
K.S.: Well, yes, he is avoiding, he takes a cautious position and does not want serious false starts, does not want to translate this into some kind of personal disagreement with Zelensky. But it is obvious that this is already a harsher political statement than all previous interviews, because before that, obviously, he still hoped to come to an agreement with Zelensky and believed that Zelensky, under the pressure of protests, would return him to the post of Minister of Defense.
This statement is the beginning of a political career, joining the opposition. Constructive opposition, that’s why such a restrained tone, but in opposition.
What was the reaction to Fedorov's speech?
BBC: What was the reaction to this speech?
K.S.: Contradictory. It must be said that many of those who spoke for Fedorov are disappointed. Because after all, they did not follow the politician Fedorov and not his political ambitions, but so that Fedorov would return to the workplace, where he showed himself well, and continue to work for the benefit of the defense of Ukraine.
That is, now de facto Fedorov, with his statement, is turning these people into a political movement in support of the future candidate Mikhail Fedorov. This is manipulation, and, frankly speaking, not everyone liked it.
Many are already saying that Fedorov made a false start, that he was hasty with this statement and that this may affect his surge in popularity: he immediately jumped into the top three potential leaders in a hypothetical presidential election, and now he may lose popularity after this statement.
BBC: And it is also noteworthy that this statement was published the day before the Rada approved the new Minister of Defense of Ukraine, Yevgeny Khmara. Do you think it was an accident or not that Fedorov published this appeal on this very day?
K.S. There are possible options here. Or it was already an all-in move: Fedorov understood that everything, the process had begun and there would already be a new Minister of Defense, but he would not return to the chair. Either this was the last attempt to put pressure on Zelensky: I’m ready to go into opposition, demand elections, I’m ready to do anything, so bring me back. I went into berserk mode.
One way or another, this did not affect the voting in any way. And some even believe that the very fact that so many votes were collected for Khmara was out of spite for Fedorov. The deputies demonstrated that they rallied around the president on this issue.
BBC: Yes, they had a chance, so to speak, to show their disagreement with the president. Let us remind you once again that, on the one hand, the Verkhovna Rada is controlled by Zelensky’s faction, the “Servant of the People.” On the other hand, many deputies have already expressed public disagreement with Zelensky’s policies more than once. And here they had the opportunity to respond to the protests and not support Khmara’s statement or abstain. But they didn't agree to it.
I must say that Khmara comes from the SBU, also from law enforcement agencies, he has many years of experience, he is a person in good standing everywhere...
K.S.: Yes, these are honored people, Khmara was appointed as the person who should pick up this entire high-tech line in the Ministry of Defense. He served in the center of the Alpha special forces, including dealing with long-range strikes on Russian territory, so this topic is familiar to him. But it is important that this will be a minister without political burden, without the political ambitions that Fedorov had. It seems to me that Zelensky is following the path of depoliticizing the army, that is, bringing in professionals, but without a political background.
New NABU investigation “Forrest Gump” - what is this case?
BBC: In these last days, several events are happening in Ukraine. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, NABU, has launched Operation Forrest Gump against a certain criminal organization, which allegedly includes officials from the office of the President of Ukraine, deputies, bankers... What is known about this case as of the morning of Thursday, August 20?
K.S.: If we take the key plot, then we are talking about the legalization of corruption funds, which were then used as a deposit for one of the defendants in “Mindicgate” - ex-Minister of Energy German Galushchenko.
The High Anti-Corruption Court set a high bail amount, 150 million hryvnia, which is about three million euros. This money was quickly collected and paid for Galushchenko. And now NABU has followed the trail of this money. It turned out that in fact it was money from the corruption common fund, which was legalized through the nationalized Sense Bank, a former subsidiary of the Russian Alfa Bank, owned by Mikhail Fridman.
This bank also appeared on Mindich’s tapes, because the supervisory board of this bank was formed from trusted people of the participants in this corruption scheme. There have already been publications on this matter, that is, this topic has already been in the field of view of anti-corruption authorities. Now the head of the supervisory board of Sense Bank, Gladishenko, has been removed from his post, and investigations are underway.
Also involved in this case is the deputy head of the presidential office, Irina Mudraya. This is Andrei Ermak’s protege, who oversaw legal issues. She didn't seem involved in this story, but she is on these wiretaps. Zelensky promptly fired her from her position.
And also there appear, in fact, “wallets” where all this money came from: these are such well-known Kyiv developers Vadim Stolar and Maxim Mikitas. Stolar is a current deputy of the Verkhovna Rada, elected from the party “Opposition Platform - For Life” Viktor Medvedchuk, now banned in Ukraine. Now he heads the “Restoration of Ukraine” group, assembled from former OPZH members.
