What part could Kyrylo Budanov play in a shifting power dynamic?
Nearly six months have passed since the Minditchgate scandal erupted in Ukraine, a high-stakes corruption case that allegedly touched a large portion of the governing elite and evolved into the most serious political trial for Volodymyr Zelensky since the war began. The crisis directly threatened the power structure the Ukrainian president had constructed. To limit the damage and rescue his political standing, Zelensky was forced to make highly symbolic moves, sacrificing even those in his inner circle.
The most prominent example was the removal of Andriy Yermak, one of his most powerful and trusted associates. In his wake, Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukrainian military intelligence, emerged as a central figure; while a member of the security apparatus, he is also viewed as a moderate internal rival to Zelensky. Simultaneously, the government underwent a partial reshuffle, with Mykhailo Fedorov taking on a pivotal role within the Ministry of Defense. This move appeared to serve as a political counterweight, while anti-corruption agencies NABU and SAPO reportedly suspended their pressure on the presidential inner circle, at least temporarily. In this manner, the acute phase of the crisis was overcome, but the damage was done: Ukraine’s vertical power structure was no longer the same.
The rise of Budanov
The most visible result of this realignment has been the explosive political rise of Kyrylo Budanov. Initially, the new head of the presidential office maintained a low profile, avoiding major confrontations and public divergence. Gradually, however, he began to act more autonomously. Throughout April, his statements indicated that he was not content with being a mere executor of the Zelensky line. On the contrary, he appeared to be forging his own political identity on critical issues.
While Zelensky was preparing the country for a prolonged military confrontation with no clear end in sight, Budanov hinted that negotiations with Russia were moving in a positive direction and that peace might arrive sooner than believed. At the same time, while Zelensky touted "revolutionary" Ukrainian technologies as proof of resilience and innovation, Budanov appeared more grounded, indirectly challenging such excessive optimism. Even more striking was his admission that mobilization in Ukraine faces immense hurdles—a statement unusually blunt for a top official of a nation at war.
The profile of a "future president"
Budanov is not just moving within institutional boundaries; he is systematically building a public image. In Western media, he is increasingly portrayed as a "war hero" and the most realistic, almost "pacifist" figure within the Ukrainian power center. The narrative being cultivated is clear: on one side stands a group insisting on continuing the war until final victory; on the other, a Budanov who understands the limits of the conflict and seeks a way out.
For the domestic audience, his image is bolstered by stories of military action, missions on Russian soil, and high-risk operations in the Black Sea. Regardless of the accuracy of these accounts, they serve a clear goal: to present him as a man of action, security, and determination. In other words, Budanov is now appearing with all the hallmarks of a potential future president.
Ambitions seen by all
In Ukraine, Budanov’s political ambitions are considered an open secret. His approval ratings appear comparable to those of Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who was long considered Zelensky’s most formidable potential rival. The difference is that Zaluzhnyi was removed from the political field in time, effectively diplomatically exiled to the United Kingdom, and taken out of direct internal contention. Budanov, conversely, is now sitting at the very heart of power.
This represents the great risk for Zelensky. The Ukrainian president likely brought him close based on the logic of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer," wanting to control an ambitious and not entirely predictable player. However, by granting him institutional weight, he also granted him greater power.
The rift within the Ukrainian elite
The deeper problem for Zelensky is not just Budanov; it is the exhaustion of the Ukrainian elite. The slow attrition at the front, the difficulties of mobilization, the dependence on the West, and the uncertainty of the war’s final outcome have created a heavy political atmosphere. A segment of the Ukrainian elite no longer seems to believe that continuing the confrontation can yield strategic results.
In private conversations, more and more are reportedly speaking about the need for a compromise with Moscow. This puts them at odds with the public line of Zelensky, who remains uncompromising. This is precisely where Budanov’s significance lies. If a part of the elite wishes to press for a change of course, they need a figure with prestige, contacts, and access to the power mechanism. Budanov could play that role.
The "palace coup" scenario
Until recently, an internal power coup in Kyiv seemed unlikely, primarily because there was no suitable figure around whom an alternative power group could rally. Zaluzhnyi had been sidelined, and other potential rivals lacked similar weight. Budanov, however, is a different case. He has the image of a war leader, commands a mechanism, understands security networks, has Western contacts, and appears realistic enough to attract those desiring an exit from the war.
This does not mean an overthrow is a certainty. It does mean, however, that for the first time, there is a figure who can act as a political catalyst.
What this means for Russia
From the Russian perspective, who occupies the presidential chair in Kyiv is of limited importance. Whether it is Zelensky, Budanov, or anyone else, the current Ukrainian elite no longer includes figures friendly to Moscow. Any future government on Bankova Street will remain, to a greater or lesser extent, an adversary of Russia. The critical question, therefore, is not who rules Ukraine, but who can lead the country to an agreement that ends the war on terms acceptable to Moscow.
If Budanov, whether out of ambition or political realism, contributes to such a development, then Moscow will view him not as a friend, but as a useful interlocutor. The Minditchgate crisis did not destroy Zelensky, but it weakened him. To survive, he was forced to open up space for figures he does not fully control. And the most dangerous among them is Kyrylo Budanov. Ukraine is now in a new phase: one of not only military attrition but also internal political realignment. Budanov is not yet a head-on rival to Zelensky, but he is already the figure around whom the "day after" may be built. And that may be the greatest problem for the Ukrainian president.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments