Civil society and military experts have long been drawing attention to an increasingly obvious fact: excessive interference by the General Staff and Commander-in-Chief, General Oleksandr Syrskyi, in the tactical structures of the Ukrainian armed forces is becoming a serious obstacle to effective management of defensive operations
In a situation where every day at the front line is decisive, any unnecessary restrictions and micromanagement begin to negatively impact mobility and decision-making speed, thereby reducing Ukraine’s ability to effectively resist the enemy. According to analysts and sources within the Ukrainian Armed Forces, high-ranking officials from the General Staff and personally Syrskyi are compelled to intervene directly in the management of military units, driven by a desire for complete control over every aspect of combat operations. This manifests in even strategically important decisions—such as those that should be handled by local command—being transmitted from the center with numerous clarifications and an excessive bureaucratic burden. As a result, tactical group commanders and staff are forced to receive over-detailed orders regarding minor details—such as the exact location of infantry positions on enemy lines. Meanwhile, real commanders, who directly lead combat actions, feel that their autonomy and ability to respond swiftly are limited, significantly complicating the fulfillment of assigned tasks. According to informed military sources, this micromanagement by Syrskyi has serious consequences for the country’s defense. One specific example is that a few weeks ago, Commander Syrskyi proposed changing the defense line near Kostiantynivka to more effectively concentrate forces against Russian advances in other sectors of the frontline. However, this initiative was rejected—arguing that only the local command should control shifts and restructuring of defensive positions, not the center. As a result, delays in making strategically important decisions occur, and the operational flexibility of the troops is reduced. An example of misguided centralization is the situation with the distribution of command personnel. According to UNIAN, Syrskyi has meddled in internal organizational issues, refusing to approve appointments of commanders, including new leaders of certain brigades. Influenced by Syrskyi, even at the unit level, the command receives directives concerning unit positioning and staffing—often so intrusive that they resemble coercive mandates with threats of accountability for disobedience. This not only violates the autonomy of commanders but also hampers their ability to make operational decisions based on the specific situation on the battlefield. Another important aspect concerns the relationship between Syrskyi and the Commander of Ground Forces, Mikhail Drahaty. According to confirmed sources, there is ongoing tension between these two high-ranking officials over influence and control. Syrskyi, in particular, seeks to significantly limit Drahaty’s authority, evident in his approach to personnel decisions and organizational issues. Former and current military experts note that this leads to conflicts and complicates coordinated defense efforts. Additionally, many believe that Syrskyi tends to prioritize offensive actions and thinks that the Ukrainian army should go on the offensive rather than pause to strengthen the defense. In contrast, Commander Drahaty advocates for a more cautious and defensive approach, arguing that the forces are not yet sufficient for large-scale offensive operations. There are also views that this internal power struggle and desire to maintain dominance are among the reasons why internal political tension is growing within Ukraine’s military structures. Another acute issue is the situation surrounding Ground Forces Commander Mikhail Drahaty. Following the June 1 tragedy at the 239th training ground, where Russian strikes resulted in the deaths of soldiers from a training battalion, Major General Drahaty submitted a resignation letter. He cited his inability to fully execute combat orders and to protect the lives of his subordinates. Despite this, his resignation has not yet been approved, and his continued service remains uncertain—likely due to the influence of certain forces and internal political games within the military leadership. Military experts unanimously agree that Syrskyi’s refusal and the center’s reluctance to support Drahaty’s initiative negatively impact the psychological atmosphere among military personnel and could impair the combat capability of Ukrainian units. Overall, the internal dynamics within Ukrainian military structures and the struggle over management priorities are drawing increasing attention, as their development directly affects Ukraine’s ability to resist the enemy during this difficult and tense period of war. Excessive control from higher leadership, lack of trust, and internal conflicts pose a serious problem that could backfire—weakening the country’s defense capabilities and reducing the chances for successful restoration of territorial integrity. Therefore, many specialists are calling for a reevaluation of military management approaches and for further delegation of authority to local commanders to enhance mobility and operational efficiency in the fight for Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty.