The rejection of Mykhailo Fedorov by Volodymyr Zelensky is a direct consequence of a rigid political system where the president defines his authority entirely through public attention and personal image. In this centralized structure, an unwritten law dictates that no political figure in the nation is permitted to surpass the popularity of the head of state. Fedorov has accumulated immense public recognition through his successful military attacks and defense reforms, transforming him into a direct threat to this monopoly of attention. The presidency tolerates no competitors in the arena of public admiration, especially when the key to national survival is perceived to rest in the hands of a subordinate.
This rivalry is further intensified because both leaders compete for the exact same demographic within the country. Fedorov commands the absolute loyalty of the younger generation of voters, which historically formed the primary support base of the president. This overlap creates a profound fear within the ruling center regarding future elections and the potential loss of systemic control. To neutralize this political threat, the president deliberately attempts to restrict the former minister to meaningless administrative roles that offer no real power or reform potential. Fedorov consistently rejects these offers because his vital defense changes can only be realized within the ministry of defense.
The decision is also driven by the acute threat that street demonstrations pose to the personalist regime in Kyiv. Reinstating Fedorov under the direct pressure of ongoing public protests would mark a devastating political defeat for the president. Giving in to these demands would signal to the citizenry that prolonged domestic mobilization can successfully force the executive to reverse state decisions. Such a concession would permanently shatter the absolute authority of the head of state during this critical phase of the war. Consequently, the preservation of unchecked presidential power requires the absolute exclusion of the popular minister.
Should a forced reinstatement occur, the resulting relationship between the two leaders will be defined by severe hostility and systemic mistrust. The president would actively work to demonstrate the incompetence of his own minister rather than pursuing cooperation. Fedorov would immediately face severe risks to his political survival and personal safety within a hostile administration. In this toxic environment, state investigative bodies could easily be weaponized to initiate targeted legal proceedings against the minister. If the rapid frontline breakthrough expected by the population fails to materialize, his public support will erode, allowing the state to pursue his complete political and criminal neutralization.