Power in Kyiv after Yermak

The sudden resignation of Andriy Yermak from his position as Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine marks one of the most consequential political shifts in Kyiv since the full-scale Russian invasion of 2022. For years Yermak stood at the centre of the Ukrainian state’s informal architecture of power. He operated less as an administrator and more as a political gatekeeper who mediated access to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, stitched together fragile parliamentary coalitions, maintained personal relationships with foreign leaders and diplomats, and exercised supervisory authority over a vast network of advisers, envoys and negotiators. His departure therefore does not merely remove a presidential chief of staff; it reconfigures the gravitational centre around which the Presidential Office has revolved.

To appreciate the consequences of his resignation, one must first understand the specific role he played. Yermak controlled the channels through which political, economic and diplomatic information reached the President. In a wartime environment in which the Presidency had absorbed powers that previously resided in cabinet, parliament and the security agencies, the Office of the President became the de facto coordinating organ of the entire system of government. Yermak’s personal authority flowed from this concentration of responsibility. He acted as curator for Ukraine’s relations with Washington and Brussels, which had increasingly devolved into direct leader-to-leader diplomacy. He chaired the negotiations on security guarantees, coordinated the Ukrainian delegation to peace summits, liaised with western intelligence services and supervised sensitive discussions relating to weapons supplies and sanctions enforcement. Few figures in modern Ukrainian history have ever exercised such informal reach.

The immediate consequence of his exit is the destabilisation of this highly personalised system. Although formal constitutional powers remain unchanged, the Presidency will struggle to reproduce the efficiency with which Yermak gathered and curated information for Zelenskyy. His network of deputy heads, advisers and envoys was loyal to him personally, and some may now depart, shift allegiance or simply act with reduced discipline. The result is likely to be a temporary fragmentation of decision-making, with ministries and agencies seeking to reassert their own influence over files that Yermak had drawn into his orbit.

At least three structural effects can be expected.

First, the balance of power inside Kyiv is likely to tilt back towards the traditional state institutions. The Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may now find opportunities to reclaim responsibilities that had drifted into the Presidential Office. Ministers who previously felt constrained by the centralisation of authority may assert themselves more strongly in public and private. Whether this redistribution results in healthier checks and balances or in bureaucratic rivalry will depend upon the political skill of Yermak’s successor and upon the President’s willingness to allow a more collegiate structure.

Secondly, relations with Ukraine’s western partners may enter a phase of recalibration. Yermak’s diplomatic style was highly personal, relying upon constant direct contact with senior western officials. Many of these interlocutors will now reassess how best to engage with Kyiv. Some governments may sense an opportunity to reset their own priorities; others may worry about the loss of a dependable single point of contact. Although Ukraine’s broad strategic orientation will not change, the tempo and coherence of western co-ordination may be affected until a new equilibrium is established.

Thirdly, internal political manoeuvring is likely to intensify. The approach of future elections, whenever wartime conditions permit them, already hang over Kyiv’s political class. Yermak had been the principal enforcer of unity within the ruling Servant of the People party, and his influence over parliamentary votes was formidable. His resignation may embolden factions within the party to seek greater autonomy. It may also open space for opposition parties, regional leaders and civil society groups to articulate their criticisms more forcefully. In this sense, his departure introduces a measure of pluralism that had been suppressed during the period of emergency centralisation.

It is also necessary to consider the wartime military dimension. Yermak was one of the principal civilian overseers of Ukraine’s military strategy, even though he did not hold formal command. He mediated the often difficult relationship between military commanders and the political leadership. With his resignation, one can anticipate a period of adjustment in civil-military relations. The Ukrainian Armed Forces may attempt to speak more directly to the President, bypassing the filters that previously existed. Conversely the Presidency may appoint a successor who seeks to retain tight political supervision over military affairs. Either way, the transition will require careful management to avoid confusion at a time when battlefield clarity remains essential.

Critics of Yermak have long argued that his influence had become excessive and that his departure might create a healthier distribution of authority. There is some merit in this perspective. A system in which so much depends upon one individual is inherently vulnerable. Nevertheless the dangers of a sudden vacuum should not be underestimated. Yermak’s networks, for all their imperfections, performed an integrative function in a polity stretched by war, economic strain and political polarisation. Their abrupt disruption might generate short-term uncertainty, especially in domains where rapid decision-making is vital.

In the longer term, the consequences will depend upon how Zelenskyy chooses to restructure the Presidential Office. If he appoints a successor with a mandate to maintain centralisation then the system may return to its previous form, albeit with reduced efficiency. If he instead uses this moment to decentralise power back to ministries and to parliament, then his Presidency may acquire a more institutional character, less reliant upon personal intermediaries. The latter path could strengthen Ukraine’s democratic resilience, but it may also slow the pace of wartime decision-making.

Yermak’s resignation is therefore more than an individual departure. It is a moment of change that forces Kyiv to confront the tension between wartime centralisation and the longer-term need for institutional balance. The Ukrainian state has shown remarkable adaptability in the face of invasion, but its political machinery remains heavily contingent upon personal networks. How these networks are reconfigured in the coming months will shape not only the conduct of the war but also the character of the eventual peace.

The departure of Andriy Yermak disrupts the established power structure in Kyiv, opens new political space for competing institutions, unsettles foreign interlocutors and introduces uncertainty into the delicate relationship between civilian leadership and the military. It is a moment filled with risks but also with opportunities for renewal. Whether Ukraine emerges with a more plural, resilient and institutionalised system will depend upon decisions taken in the quiet corridors of the Presidential Office and upon the capacity of the Ukrainian political class to adjust to life without the man who, for several decisive years, stood at its centre.