Ukraine’s power appears to be shifting behind the scenes
By Vitaly Ryumshin, journalist and political analyst - RT composite. © Getty Images/Antonio Masiello;Maxym Marusenko;Grafissimo
Almost
six months have passed since ‘Mindichgate’ erupted in Ukraine. The
corruption scandal, which allegedly implicated large parts of the ruling
elite, became the most serious political test of Vladimir Zelensky’s
presidency and, for a time, threatened to bring it to an abrupt end.
To
stabilize his position, Zelensky was forced into concessions. His
long-time ally Andrey Yermak was removed, and in his place came Kirill
Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR), a figure
widely seen as a moderate critic of the president. The cabinet was also
reshuffled, with new figures brought in to broaden the coalition. In
return, anti-corruption bodies such as NABU and SAPO eased their
pressure on the president.
The immediate crisis has subsided. But
the structure of power in Ukraine has shifted significantly. The
clearest sign of this transformation is the rise of Budanov.
Initially,
the new head of the presidential office kept a low public profile. Over
time, however, he has grown more confident, and more visible.
Throughout April, Budanov appeared to walk a careful line in his public
statements, often striking a tone at odds with Zelensky himself.
While
the president has prepared the country for a prolonged conflict,
Budanov has spoken of ongoing negotiations and suggested that peace may
not be as distant as many assume. When Zelensky highlighted Ukraine’s
technological breakthroughs, Budanov has downplayed them. He has also
openly acknowledged the growing difficulties of mobilization, a rare
admission from a senior official in a country at war.
At the same time, Budanov has been carefully constructing his public
image. In Western media, he is presented as both a war hero and a
pragmatic “dove,” a man who understands the need to bring the
conflict to an end. For domestic audiences, his team promotes stories of
personal bravery, portraying him as a hands-on commander who has taken
part in operations and narrowly escaped danger.
The result is a carefully balanced political persona, and one that increasingly resembles that of a future president.
Budanov’s
ambitions are hardly a secret in Kiev. His approval ratings reportedly
rival those of Valeriy Zaluzhny, once seen as Zelensky’s most serious
potential rival. Unlike Zaluzhny, however, Budanov remains firmly
embedded within the system. He is said to have cultivated connections
abroad, including with figures in Donald Trump’s political orbit, while
at home he enjoys support among influential members of the ruling
Servant of the People party.
For Zelensky, bringing Budanov into
the inner circle may have seemed a logical move. Where Zaluzhny was
sidelined and sent abroad, Budanov was co-opted in an application of the
old principle: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. In
theory, this should allow the president to monitor potential dissent
within the elite.
In practice, it has created a new risk. By
elevating Budanov to the centre of power, Zelensky has given him both
visibility and institutional leverage. The head of the presidential
office is no longer a background figure but a key political actor, one
capable of shaping narratives and, potentially, alliances.
The
fault line may emerge over the question of negotiations with Russia. As
the conflict drags on and the situation at the front becomes more
difficult, a growing segment of the Ukrainian elite appears to favor
some form of compromise. This sentiment increasingly clashes with
Zelensky’s public stance.
History offers many examples of how such tensions can unfold. When a
leadership persists in a course that significant parts of the elite
consider untenable, pressure builds. Initially, this may take the form
of calls for a change in direction. But in more acute cases, it can lead
to demands for the leader himself to step aside, or to more drastic
outcomes. This is what is often described as a ‘palace coup.’
Until
recently, such a scenario in Ukraine seemed unlikely. There was no
obvious figure capable of uniting the disparate factions and presenting a
credible alternative. Zaluzhny, for all his popularity, has withdrawn
from the political arena.
Budanov, however, may fit the role. He’s
ambitious and not entirely controllable, and he’s positioning himself
as a bridge between different camps, particularly those who see the need
for a negotiated end to the conflict. In that sense, he could become a
focal point for elite dissatisfaction.
The question, then, is no longer whether internal tensions will intensify, but how far they may go, and how quickly.
For
Russia, the outcome may matter less than the process. Whether Zelensky,
Budanov, or another figure occupies the presidential office, Kiev’s
political class remains broadly hostile to Moscow. From a pragmatic
standpoint, the key issue is policy and personalities are a secondary
concern.
If a future leadership, whether by design or necessity,
proves more willing to bring the conflict to an end on terms acceptable
to Russia, then that, ultimately, will be the decisive factor.