Post by Ivanna Demianiuk

Technology vs. “Human Resources”: Why Fedorov’s Dismissal Takes Us Backward The dismissal of Mykhailo Fedorov is no longer just a personnel change. It is a deliberate choice by the President in favor of the old system—one that has already proven ineffective. And it is a major mistake that will cost lives. ▪️Why Fedorov? He became a threat to the entrenched corrupt networks within Ukraine’s defense industry. His reforms challenged business interests that had profited from the war for years. Instead of supporting a reformer, the President chose to compromise with the system. ▪️A Clear Clash of Approaches: Technology vs. People We are witnessing a confrontation between two models of warfare. Fedorov advocated for preserving lives through technological superiority—innovation, drones, advanced technologies, and flexible solutions. Syrskyi, on the other hand, treats people as expendable resources. The scandals surrounding the “Skelia” unit and other incidents clearly demonstrate that this approach leads to unnecessary losses. Russia hated Fedorov and Madyar more than almost anyone else. And just as the situation had begun to stabilize and Ukraine was making progress on the battlefield thanks to technological innovation, one of them has now been removed. ▪️What About Klymenko? Fedorov’s successor is a man who is a police officer through and through. Just remember his “successful” reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where police officers fled when confronted with an active shooter on the streets of Kyiv. War is far more than policing. It demands courage in the face of extraordinary challenges, not bureaucratic loyalty. ▪️A Signal to Our Partners Ukraine’s defense ministers change with striking regularity, but this decision comes without any clear explanation. It creates the impression that personal loyalty matters more than results. Western partners are accustomed to investing in transparent, technology-driven institutions. This appointment raises concerns about backroom politics and corruption risks. ▪️Undermining Civilian Oversight Removing a reformer weakens the civilian leadership’s ability to oversee procurement and ask difficult questions of the General Staff. The successor receives a clear message: “Be loyal. Don’t challenge the system.” This is a step backward that discourages reformers and erodes institutional memory. From now on, any failures in military procurement, logistics, or technological development will inevitably be associated with the President’s personal decision. Are we prepared for that?