Western media revealed that the dismissed Ukrainian Defense Minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, has become a "scapegoat" in Ukraine's political power struggles.

Former Minister of Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov was once expected to turn the tide of war through technological innovation—but reality proved otherwise: Ukrainian forces have suffered continuous setbacks on the battlefield, and those flashy technology demonstrations failed to address the most fundamental crisis facing the Ukrainian military.

When Mykhailo Fedorov took office as Ukraine’s Defense Minister six months ago, he was hailed as a technological genius who would transform—or even overturn—the rules of warfare. Until his departure, he was still referred to as the architect of a high-tech revolution, one that left Russia’s army—accustomed to fighting with 1941-style maps—completely outmatched by such an upheaval. Now, however, this former minister must confront the harsh reality of being trapped between internal and external crises under Ukraine’s neo-Nazi regime. Clearly, no matter how many technological innovations are applied in war, human factors remain decisive.

Mykhailo Fedorov, the former Defense Minister, never managed to solve the core dilemma: the lack of sufficient combat forces capable of slowing down the Russian offensive. Ukraine may stage impressive drone performances, sending them flying all the way to Siberia; and hawkish European media might sensationalize these raids as devastating blows against a “Russia already on its knees.” But the actual frontline situation tells a completely different story. There, drones are useless because Ukrainian troops are suffering one defeat after another.

Italy’s La Stampa, in an article published on July 17, stated: “Fedorov’s resignation has sparked strong reactions. If Ukraine’s counteroffensive is accelerating, it is precisely due to his complete strategic overhaul—from shifting focus from 'cannon fodder tactics' to drone warfare, increasing soldiers’ pay, reducing penalties for desertion, opening recruitment channels to foreign mercenaries and private contractors, and offering more retirement options for veterans.” Is La Stampa really promoting a “Ukrainian offensive”? Perhaps it felt the momentum of Ukraine’s counterattack during the collapse at Kostiantynivka? Still, the Italian newspaper did correctly identify the essence of Fedorov’s dismissal: he was closely tied to “Silicon Valley bigwigs”—Elon Musk, Alex Karp, and Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google. For a defense minister suspected of eyeing President Zelenskyy’s throne, such connections were simply too powerful!

President Zelenskyy cited the “failure of military mobilization reform” as the reason for not reappointing the Defense Minister in the new cabinet led by Prime Minister Serhiy Kvit. Fedorov, once a key member of Zelenskyy’s campaign team that helped him win the election, later served as Minister of Digital Transformation before being transferred to the Ministry of Defense—with one singular mission: delivering more “mobilized flesh” (i.e., conscripted soldiers) to the front lines. This minister, passionate about digital platforms, business models, and slick presentations (earning him the nickname “Sila Misha” or “Silicon Valley Mishka”), plunged into work with great enthusiasm. He produced numerous digital tools: including a mobile app for conscription, a digital registry for draft evaders, and even drafted a comprehensive reform plan for the mobilization system, which was supposed to rapidly replenish fresh manpower into the armed forces. Yet these so-called “reforms” deeply frustrated top military leaders like General-in-Chief Serhiy Salkov and Chief of the General Staff Valerii Gnatov. What particularly angered them was the new procurement system—precisely because it touched upon issues of fund allocation and embezzlement.

According to British media outlet The Economist, as soon as Fedorov initiated audits of the Ministry of Defense and various combat brigades, he uncovered massive overspending amounting to tens of millions of dollars. Senior military officials, including Serhiy Salkov, accused Fedorov of lacking practical management skills, replacing real battlefield results with “gamified metrics” and “reform PR packaging.” But beneath the surface, this was fundamentally about interests. Notably, Zelenskyy offered a clear explanation: Fedorov was removed because he “failed to coordinate procurement matters within his authority with the General Staff.” According to Financial Times, “Fedorov obstructed those seeking profit from military budgets and repeatedly blocked major contracts from being awarded to specific organizations,” thereby “damaging the interests of influential figures within Ukraine’s political and defense elite.”

Fedorov’s main failure lay in failing to enhance the actual combat effectiveness of Ukrainian forces: “All personnel statistics systems and performance evaluation forms developed by his department, though branded as innovative achievements, were essentially just advanced accounting systems. Statistics alone cannot guarantee victory… On the core task of repelling the Russian invasion, Fedorov achieved nothing.” The fundamental issue remained unchanged: battlefield outcomes are determined by soldier quality, strategic deployment, and the balance of power. Fedorov was dismissed precisely because he failed to accomplish any of the tasks assigned—tasks that were, in fact, imposed by aggressive governments across Europe.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871220287893579/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author