From Power Broker to Political Liability? What Andriy Yermak’s Fall Means for Zelensky, Ukraine, and the West

As President Volodymyr Zelensky’s once-dominant chief of staff Andriy Yermak reportedly exits the inner circle, Kyiv’s war-time power structure is shifting. For Washington, Ottawa, and European capitals, this is more than a personnel story — it is a stress test of Ukraine’s institutions in the middle of an existential war.

Why Andriy Yermak Matters Far Beyond Kyiv

For much of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Andriy Yermak was not just Ukraine’s presidential chief of staff — he was widely seen as Zelensky’s gatekeeper, negotiator-in-chief, and political enforcer. Western diplomats often described him as the person you had to persuade if you wanted anything meaningful from Kyiv.

According to recent reporting by the BBC and other European outlets, Yermak’s influence has sharply eroded amid internal tensions, battlefield setbacks, and growing criticism at home. While official accounts remain cautious, the emerging narrative is one of a powerful aide who accumulated enormous authority in crisis — and then became too controversial to keep at the heart of the system.

For audiences in the United States and Canada, this shift may sound technical, even insider-ish. It isn’t. Yermak’s rise and fall illuminate deeper questions that directly affect North American policy, including:

• How consolidated is power around Zelensky?
• Who shapes key decisions on the battlefield, corruption reform, and peace talks?
• Can Ukraine manage wartime political change without destabilizing its war effort?

From Film Producer to War-Time Power Broker

Yermak’s Unusual Path to the Center of Power

Before politics, Andriy Yermak was better known as a lawyer and film producer, tied to Ukraine’s entertainment world. His connection to Zelensky — himself a comedian and producer turned president — came from that shared media universe.

Shortly after Zelensky’s landslide 2019 victory, Yermak joined his inner circle and quickly rose. In 2020, he became the head of the presidential administration (chief of staff), a role that in post-Soviet political systems often combines elements of U.S.-style White House chief of staff, national security adviser, and political strategist.

Western outlets like Reuters and CNN have described Yermak as instrumental in:

• Coordinating Ukraine’s outreach to the Biden administration and European governments
• Helping shape negotiation positions in early war talks with Russia and intermediaries such as Turkey
• Managing internal political rivalries, including tensions with Ukraine’s powerful security and defense institutions

By 2022–2023, some analysts were openly calling Ukraine a “Zelensky–Yermak system,” highlighting the degree to which the president relied on his aide for both domestic control and international strategy.

The Accumulation — and Over-Accumulation — of Power

Centralization as a Wartime Survival Strategy

As Russia’s invasion expanded in February 2022, centralized decision-making in Kyiv looked like a necessity. According to reporting from AP News and The Financial Times, Yermak became a central hub for:

• Coordinating defense assistance with the Pentagon, NATO, and Canada’s Department of National Defence
• Shaping Ukraine’s communication strategy with Western publics
• Managing high-stakes issues like intelligence reshuffles, anti-corruption campaigns, and oligarch influence

Supporters argued this concentration of power gave Ukraine a coherent, quick-reacting leadership structure in a war of survival. In Washington and Ottawa, where bureaucratic gridlock is familiar, such fast decision-making was often welcomed, even admired.

Critics See a “Court” Around Zelensky

But as the war dragged on and battlefield progress slowed, the same features that once looked like strengths began to look like vulnerabilities.

Ukrainian opposition figures, some civil society activists, and a number of military-aligned voices started accusing Yermak’s office of overreach. Commentary cited by The Economist and regional outlets suggested growing complaints about:

• Political pressures on independent media and investigative journalists
• Personnel decisions in the military that appeared influenced by loyalty as much as competence
• The sidelining or dismissal of officials seen as politically inconvenient, including some anti-corruption figures and security chiefs

On Ukrainian-language Telegram channels — a major space for real-time war updates — users frequently debated whether Zelensky was too dependent on Yermak’s advice, especially on sensitive security issues. While views are mixed, the narrative of a powerful inner court gained traction as the war’s costs mounted.

Key Fractures That Undermined Yermak

Military Tensions and Firing of Commanders

The clearest warning signs emerged in the friction between Zelensky’s office and top military leadership. As reported by Reuters and The New York Times, disagreements over strategy, mobilization, and the pace of offensives led to public strains with high-profile commanders.

Yermak was often described by Ukrainian and Western analysts as a central player in internal debates over:

• Rotations and dismissals in the armed forces
• Messaging around stalled counteroffensives
• How to respond to growing public exhaustion with the war effort

For many Ukrainians watching closely, the impression took hold that some of the most controversial moves were coming from, or at least through, Yermak’s office. Social media commentary on Ukrainian Facebook and local forums frequently accused him of “politicizing the army,” a charge his allies deny.

Anti-Corruption Tensions and Western Pressure

Another front of vulnerability was corruption. U.S. and EU assistance has increasingly been tied to rule-of-law and governance benchmarks. According to analyses in Politico Europe and The Hill, some Western officials quietly expressed concern that too much power flowing through Yermak’s office could dilute institutional checks and balances.

Ukraine’s own anti-corruption bodies, such as NABU and SAPO, became highly visible as they pursued cases involving wartime procurement and government-connected business interests. Whenever investigations brushed up against figures close to the presidential office, debates erupted about whether the system would allow true accountability.

While no mainstream Western outlet has reported direct evidence tying Yermak personally to specific corruption cases, the perception that his office was at the center of a highly personalized power network made him an easy focal point for critics at home and skeptics abroad.

War Fatigue and the Politics of Blame

As the conflict ground into a second and third year, Ukraine’s early narrative of constant momentum gave way to a more mixed reality: localized gains, heavy losses, and a fortified Russian defense. According to CNN and AP News, this fed both public frustration and elite-level finger-pointing.

In that environment, highly visible figures like Yermak often become lightning rods. Users on Reddit’s geopolitics and Ukraine-focused communities have increasingly debated whether problems in Kyiv are about personalities (such as Yermak) or structural constraints (from limited manpower to wavering Western support).

Many posts emphasize that in democratic and semi-democratic systems at war, powerful aides are often the first to go when leaders need to signal change — not unlike high-profile cabinet reshuffles in Washington during unpopular wars.

Why This Matters in Washington and Ottawa

The “Personality Channel” for Western Aid

For U.S. and Canadian policymakers, Yermak has been more than a domestic Ukrainian actor. He has functioned as a kind of informal ambassador-at-large, especially on sensitive topics like:

• Security guarantees and NATO aspirations
• Long-range weapons transfers and rules of engagement
• Ukraine’s red lines in any future negotiations with Moscow

According to reporting from Axios and Politico, several major White House and State Department conversations about escalatory weapon systems — such as longer-range missiles and advanced air defenses — have gone through Yermak, who often provided political assurances about how they would be used.

Canada, which has been consistently supportive of Ukraine since 2014 and hosts a large Ukrainian diaspora, also worked closely with Zelensky’s team, including Yermak, on aid packages and international advocacy. Canadian outlets like the Globe and Mail and CBC have previously noted Yermak’s role in coordinating with diaspora organizations and shaping Kyiv’s messaging in North America.

His weakening or removal from the core circle introduces uncertainty: who will inherit that function, and will they be perceived as more institutional or equally personalized?

Congressional and Parliamentary Optics

In the U.S., debates over Ukraine are already polarized. Critics of extended support, including some in the Republican Party, routinely raise concerns about Ukrainian governance. Any high-level shake-up in Kyiv can be seized upon to either argue:

• That Ukraine is cleaning house and maturing institutionally, or
• That the system is unstable and riddled with opaque power struggles

On Capitol Hill, staffers tracking Ukraine policy for key committees will be asking:

• Does Yermak’s fall mean Zelensky is bowing to reformist or military pressure?
• Or is this a tactical sacrifice to preserve the president’s core authority while relieving domestic pressure?

In Canada’s Parliament, where cross-party support for Ukraine has been comparatively strong but not unlimited, similar questions arise. The way Kyiv frames Yermak’s departure — as reform, renewal, or necessity — may affect how long political leaders in Ottawa can maintain a broad consensus.

Lessons from Other “Right-Hand Men” in Wartime

Historical Echoes: From Rumsfeld to Rasputin Comparisons

Powerful political operators who serve as controversial right hands to wartime leaders are not unique to Ukraine. Analysts on cable news panels and in think-tank reports have drawn parallels, cautiously but tellingly, to figures such as:

• Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defense Secretary during the Iraq War, who became a focal point for criticism of strategy and planning.
• Lyudmila Beria is sometimes mistakenly named in public discourse, but in fact it was Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret police chief, who embodied extreme centralized power — an analogy many Ukrainians reject as too dark and inapplicable.
• Sergey Kiriyenko, one of Vladimir Putin’s internal managers of occupied territories, often framed as the Kremlin’s technocratic political enforcer.

In online discussions, especially on Twitter/X and Reddit, critics of Yermak occasionally used the language of “Rasputin” — shorthand for a shadowy court influence figure — to describe his perceived behind-the-scenes power. Pro-Zelensky voices pushed back, arguing this overdramatizes normal presidential reliance on trusted advisers during war.

The comparison that may resonate most for American and Canadian readers is with U.S. wartime chiefs of staff or national security advisers who became symbols of broader frustration:

• John Kelly and Mick Mulvaney during the Trump administration, seen as struggling to structure or constrain presidential instincts.
• Henry Kissinger in his dual role as national security adviser and secretary of state during the Vietnam era, embodying a highly personalized foreign policy apparatus.

The pattern is familiar: in prolonged conflicts, strong presidential aides accumulate power — and then either transform institutions or become casualties of political gravity.

Domestic Ukrainian Politics: What Fills the Vacuum?

Military Figures vs. Civilian Strategists

One immediate question within Ukraine is whether Yermak’s diminished role opens more space for the professional military — or whether another politically connected civilian simply steps into his shoes.

Some Ukrainian commentators, quoted by regional outlets and amplified on Telegram, argue that empowering respected commanders and institutional defense structures could improve public trust. Others caution that militarizing the political sphere too heavily could undermine democratic norms, especially once the war ends.

The optimal balance, many analysts say, is a civilian-led system with clear, transparent lines between the presidency, the general staff, and independent watchdog institutions. The degree to which Zelensky reconfigures his team after Yermak may signal whether he’s moving closer to that model or doubling down on a different, more centralized approach.

Opposition, Oligarchs, and Civil Society

Yermak’s central role also meant he was a primary gatekeeper vis-à-vis oligarchs, regional elites, and business interests. His fall could trigger three potential shifts:

1. Temporary Fragmentation: Competing political-business groups might see an opening to expand influence, leading to a scramble for access to the president.
2. Institutionalization: Under Western pressure and domestic activism, Zelensky could channel more decision-making through formal ministries and agencies rather than personal networks.
3. Quiet Re-centralization: Another trusted confidant, less publicly controversial but similarly powerful, may simply replace Yermak in practice.

Civil society organizations in Kyiv have long urged the second path. Reports and commentary from Ukrainian watchdog groups, echoed in Reuters and EUobserver coverage, emphasize that sustainable reconstruction and EU integration require stronger institutions, not just capable individuals at the top.

Western Public Opinion and Social Media Reactions

Reddit: Skepticism and Systemic Questions

On Reddit, especially in r/worldnews, r/geopolitics, and Ukraine-focused subreddits, discussion about Yermak’s fall has mixed three recurring themes:

• System vs. Person: Many users argue that focusing on Yermak may distract from deeper structural constraints — corruption risks, limited manpower, and slow Western weapons deliveries.
• Conditional Support: Some Western commenters reiterate support for Ukraine but insist that “no blank checks” means expecting transparent, accountable governance.
• Russian Propaganda Concerns: A noticeable number warn that Kremlin-linked accounts may exploit any elite reshuffle in Kyiv to amplify narratives that Ukraine is chaotic or collapsing.

Twitter/X: Narrative Battle in Real Time

On Twitter/X, the reaction has been faster, more polarized, and often more emotional:

• Pro-Ukraine voices frame Yermak’s decline as part of a healthy adjustment process in a democracy at war.
• Critics of Western aid highlight the story as evidence of “court politics” in Kyiv, suggesting it undermines the case for long-term support.
• Accounts promoting Russian narratives repeatedly describe the shake-up as proof that “the regime” in Kyiv is unstable — a storyline analysts at Western think tanks have warned about since early in the war.

Many on Twitter express surprise at how much influence a non-elected aide could exert in a country celebrated for its resistance and resilience. Others point out that in Washington, Ottawa, London, and Paris, unelected chiefs of staff and security advisers routinely shape policy behind the scenes.

Facebook and Diaspora Conversations

Within North American Ukrainian diaspora communities — particularly active on Facebook and in community media — conversation tends to be both highly engaged and deeply personal. Comments in Canadian and U.S.-based community groups reflect:

• Strong concern about avoiding internal splits that Russia could exploit
• Debate over whether personnel changes at the top are overdue renewal or risky instability
• Calls for sustained support from Ottawa and Washington regardless of specific personalities in Kyiv

For many diaspora members, the central issue is not Andriy Yermak himself, but whether Ukraine emerges from this war more democratic and less captured by any single network of power.

Implications for Peace Talks and War Trajectory

Negotiation Channels and Trust

Yermak has been involved in various negotiation tracks, from early ceasefire attempts to dialogues about prisoner exchanges and grain corridor agreements. His departure or marginalization raises several questions:

• Who will now coordinate sensitive back-channel communications with Western security services and mediating states?
• Will European capitals and Washington see the new configuration as more or less reliable?
• Could Russia interpret the shake-up as a sign of weakness — or as an opportunity to test Kyiv’s internal cohesion?

Analysts cited by The Guardian and Foreign Policy note that in high-stakes conflicts, continuity of contact persons matters. Changing key interlocutors mid-war can slow communication or increase the risk of miscalculation, especially if Moscow or other actors misunderstand the internal significance of personnel moves.

No Quick Path to a Negotiated End

Despite occasional speculation, there is no credible evidence from mainstream outlets that Yermak’s status alone was the main obstacle to or driver of peace talks. Ukraine’s core position — that any settlement must respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity — is shaped by a broad elite consensus and public opinion hardened by atrocities and occupation.

What changes is not the basic strategic objective, but the style and structure of how Kyiv negotiates with allies and adversaries. A more institutionalized foreign policy apparatus may, in the long run, serve Ukraine better than a heavily personalized one — though it may prove slower in crisis moments.

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Predictions

Short Term (Next 6–12 Months)

• Messaging Pivot from Kyiv: Expect Zelensky’s office to emphasize continuity, stability, and reform — portraying any change around Yermak as modernization rather than turmoil.
• Institutional Rebalancing: There may be a visible effort to empower certain ministries (Defense, Foreign Affairs, Justice) as interlocutors with the West, instead of relying primarily on the presidential office.
• Western Conditionality Rhetoric: U.S. and Canadian officials, especially in legislative bodies, are likely to stress governance and transparency conditions more explicitly in public statements about future aid.
• Russian Information Operations: Kremlin-aligned media will almost certainly amplify the storyline of a “fracturing Kyiv leadership,” requiring careful counter-messaging from Ukraine and its partners.

Long Term (Post-War Horizon)

• Institutional Memory: However the war ends, Ukraine’s political class will remember both the advantages and the dangers of over-centralized presidential entourages.
• Constitutional and Administrative Reform: EU accession and reconstruction funding will likely be tied to reforms that reduce the scope for any single aide to exercise quasi-viceroy powers again.
• North American Policy Lessons: For Washington and Ottawa, the Yermak experience reinforces the need to engage not only with charismatic leaders and their inner circles, but also with legislative, judicial, and civil society actors in partner countries.
• Political Narratives at Home: In the U.S. and Canada, skeptics of foreign entanglements may use Yermak’s fall as a talking point about the unpredictability of external partners — while supporters of Ukraine will counter that democratic systems changing personnel mid-war is a feature, not a bug.

What North American Audiences Should Watch Next

For readers in the United States and Canada, the key is not to view Andriy Yermak’s career as an isolated drama, but as a lens on three deeper dynamics:

1. Ukraine’s Institutional Trajectory: Does power flow into stronger, more transparent institutions — or merely into new, less visible gatekeepers?
2. Western Leverage and Responsibility: Can Washington, Ottawa, and European capitals use their leverage constructively, encouraging reforms without undermining wartime unity?
3. Information Integrity: As Russian state media and aligned accounts seek to weaponize every sign of internal change in Kyiv, how do North American media and platforms reinforce fact-based, nuanced coverage rather than simplistic collapse narratives?

Andriy Yermak’s fall from the pinnacle of power in Kyiv does not by itself determine the fate of Ukraine or Western policy. But it is an important signal that Ukraine’s wartime politics are entering a new, more complex phase — one in which personalities may matter a little less, and institutions, public trust, and long-term strategy matter a lot more.