Personnel changes in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which took place during the war, were expected, but caused a wide discussion in society and even foreign mass media. Each such rearrangement during periods of crisis is often perceived as an attempt to patch up a “leaky ship” and “change the beds in a certain room.” However, as experience shows, similar personnel shake-ups have already happened more than once, but each time the main question remained unresolved – did it make life better for people?
In peacetime, the news that a large number of key members of the Ukrainian government are resigning at the same time would have become a sensation and would have been discussed at all levels. However, now that the public’s attention is focused on more critical issues, such as missile attacks or the dire situation at the front, personnel changes in the government are taking a back seat. The war has changed priorities, and events that previously would have caused a loud resonance are now perceived as less important against the background of the general crisis and threats. In addition, each new appointment is accompanied by promises of quick reforms and stabilization, increased efficiency of activities and positive changes, but people simply do not believe them anymore, they are tired of waiting for them, because they last not for years, but for decades. Nevertheless, in the conditions of war, when the survival of the state is at stake, Ukrainians, more than ever before, expect not only an efficient government, but also honesty and effective results.
Previous experience
In Ukraine, the mass dismissal of ministers and high-ranking officials is not a new phenomenon, and every time it was accompanied by loud discussions and ambiguous reactions both among politicians and in society. For example, after the “Orange Revolution” of 2004, Viktor Yushchenko came to power, and Yulia Tymoshenko was appointed prime minister. However, already in September 2005, only a few months after coming to power, a serious crisis began in the government. Tymoshenko, along with several key ministers, was dismissed, which affected not only the prime minister herself, but also members of her team, including the ministers of economy and social policy. This was the result of political contradictions and corruption scandals, which caused a political resonance and a crisis in the relations between the “orange” forces.
Political events in 2013-2014 led to a complete reboot of the government. After the escape of Viktor Yanukovych and his government, there was a mass resignation of ministers. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who became prime minister after these events, headed a new government, which consisted mostly of new people. The resignation of Mykola Azarov’s government and subsequent personnel changes were the result of protests against corruption and authoritarianism that swept Ukraine during the Euromaidan. Although the new appointments were perceived as a chance for democratic reforms, many promises remained unfulfilled due to the difficult situation in the east of the country and the annexation of Crimea.
In April 2016, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk resigned after two years of work, and his government was sharply criticized from various sides. One of its main objects was the government’s economic policy, which failed to provide a tangible improvement in life for Ukrainians after the Revolution of Dignity. Despite serious challenges, such as the war in the east of the country and the annexation of Crimea, society expected more decisive reforms and quick results. A sharp increase in tariffs for housing and communal services, which took place against the background of devaluation of the hryvnia, led to the fact that the purchasing power of citizens decreased significantly. Although these measures were part of the IMF’s requirements for receiving financial support, their consequences painfully hit the wallets of ordinary Ukrainians. The government was unable to provide sufficient support for socially vulnerable sections of the population, which became one of the reasons for growing discontent.
In addition, despite promises to fight corruption, the activities of Yatsenyuk’s government were constantly accompanied by scandals related to non-transparent tenders and possible abuses at state-owned enterprises. For example, one of the high-profile topics was the accusation of corruption in the procurement of gas for Naftogaz.
One of the most criticized projects was the idea of building the so-called “Yatsenyuk Wall” on the border with Russia. The project, which provided for the strengthening of the border to protect against Russian aggression, in practice turned into an object of ridicule and outrage for corruption and the very flimsy structure, similar to a chain-link net. Although the idea of strengthening the border was important from the point of view of national security, its implementation caused doubts due to the discrepancy between the declared results and the funds spent. Society was outraged that after several years and millions of hryvnias allocated for the project, the “wall” remained unfinished, and part of the money, according to the investigation, could have been stolen. At the same time, neither Yatsenyuk nor other officials were brought to criminal responsibility.
In March 2020, President Volodymyr Zelenskyi initiated the resignation of the government of Oleksiy Honcharuk, who was appointed with great hope and pathos, and who worked for only a few months. The resignation was massive, key ministers left the government. Dissatisfaction with the pace of reforms and the government’s inability to effectively respond to challenges, including the economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, were cited as the reasons for this reboot. This government was remembered by Ukrainians for the endless scandals related to the actions of unprofessional ministers, as well as the announcement of “great privatization.” Honcharuk himself remained in people’s memory only for riding around the Cabinet on a scooter and scandalous audio recordings, where he called himself a “profane in the economy” at a meeting with the leadership of the Ministry of Finance and the National Bank, discussing Zelensky’s economic knowledge.
Personnel changes in the government of Denys Shmygal also became resonant. In November 2021, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine dismissed three ministers at once – economy, ecology and strategic industries. The main reasons for dismissals were internal conflicts and shortcomings in the work of ministries, high-ranking officials were dismissed for corruption investigations, in particular in the Ministry of Defense and other key structures. These changes caused outrage in society, because many citizens were waiting for stability and efficiency during the war, and constant personnel changes fueled the feeling of instability. Nevertheless, they did not touch Shmyhal.
Current situation
During the war in Ukraine, personnel changes in the government became particularly acute – during September 4-5, more than half of the ministers were replaced. In addition, on September 6, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dismissed five deputy ministers at a meeting. In addition, five ministries, which until now functioned under the leadership of acting responsibilities, finally received permanent ministers. This decision was supposed to reduce the tension surrounding the issue of the temporary management of the ministries, which was often criticized for a lack of stability and efficiency. It is particularly interesting that three of the newly appointed ministers previously held the positions of deputy heads of the President’s Office, which raised a number of questions about increasing his influence on government structures.
However, these personnel changes took place without a transparent reporting procedure for ministers or clear explanations of the reasons for their dismissal. Only three of the six dismissed ministers decided to appear before the Verkhovna Rada on the day of their dismissal, which led to criticism of the lack of communication with society and deputies. This format of reshuffles, without proper reporting and discussion, has drawn criticism from the public, who believe that it undermines trust in the authorities, raises suspicions about the behind-the-scenes nature of decision-making, and complicates the transparency of wartime management processes.
Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal was personally present at the meeting during which the new ministers were approved. However, his participation did not clarify the reasons for such a large-scale rotation, and many questions remained unanswered, including why these ministers were chosen for resignation or appointment.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy commented on the large-scale reboot of the Cabinet:
“I have already spoken about restarting the Cabinet of Ministers and many ministries. I am very grateful to the ministers and the entire government team, who worked for Ukraine for 4.5, and some were ministers for 5 years. We need new energy today, and these steps are related to the strengthening of our state in various directions, international politics, diplomacy are no exception.”
However, the new ministers cannot be called “new faces”: they were already in the government, the President’s Office or in positions in regional administrations. The question is different: why in such a situation did Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal remain unsinkable again?
And what about the Prime Minister?
Surprisingly, Denys Shmyhal himself remained the only unshakable “rock” against the background of these large-scale government rotations. He managed to outlast not only Volodymyr Groysman, the record holder of Poroshenko’s time, but also the “iron” Mykola Azarov himself in the prime minister’s chair. Despite the fact that for several months he was actively looking for a replacement – rumors wooed almost every other government official to take his place, and most of all – First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyridenko – Shmygal survived all the stormy waves. It seems that the storms around the Cabinet only strengthen his ability to hold on to his position with even greater zeal.
The large-scale dismissal of subordinate ministers should have become not only a signal of the need for changes in the Cabinet of Ministers, but also a direct reason for the resignation of Prime Minister Denys Shmygal himself. When more than half of the ministries receive new heads, this indicates not only significant deficiencies in the work of the ministries, but also a systemic crisis of the government in general. Shmyhal, as the head of the government, must be responsible for the activities of each of the ministers, because it is he who coordinates and controls the work of the entire team. In the context of such a large-scale personnel reshuffle, his refusal to resign looks like an attempt to avoid responsibility for the failures of the government he leads.
This is not the first time that Shmyhal should have taken this step. Earlier, when a corruption scandal broke out in the Ministry of Defense, which related to the purchase of food products at inflated prices for the military, the prime minister also did not take responsibility to resign. This scandal, which arose in early 2023, caused a wave of indignation in society, as it involved funds that were supposed to be used for the needs of the army during the war. Then there were dismissals and resignations in the Ministry of Defense, in particular, Deputy Minister of Defense Vyacheslav Shapovalov resigned, but Shmyhal himself never wrote a statement, even though he was supposed to be responsible for his subordinates. He also held on to his seat when the Minister of Agricultural Policy, Mykola Solskyi, was dismissed as being suspected of illegal land acquisition.
In world practice, heads of departments have always taken responsibility in such situations. For example, in 2010, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigned due to dissatisfaction with the results of his policy regarding the US military base in Okinawa, admitting that he had failed to fulfill his promises. It was an example of honest responsibility to society.
Another example is the resignation of British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2016 after the country voted to leave the EU in a referendum. Cameron has made it clear that he cannot continue to lead the government after failing to convince citizens of his vision for the country’s future.
Instead of resigning with dignity in the face of a large-scale government crisis, Denys Shmyhal continued to cling to his position, showing a clear unwillingness to take responsibility for the government’s failures. Information about his resignation was repeatedly received from people’s deputies, it was especially actively discussed in July. However, he was defended by Arahamia, who has access to the president and influences his faction. Shmyhal has long proven his ineffectiveness, but he is convenient for the authorities because he knows the rules of the game, does not use PR and clearly fulfills what is required of him. So, instead of leaving office with dignity, acknowledging his constant failures, Shmyhal found himself in a situation where his support from influential figures at the time became the main factor in his tenure.
It should also be understood that he is not an independent figure, and the ministers who are appointed are not his creatures. The government should work as a cohesive team, where ministers reach agreements among themselves on complex issues. However, they remain separate because each of them has its own curator. In such a situation, the role of the prime minister as the “conductor of this orchestra” becomes nullified, and the effectiveness of work in general cannot be expected.
What is happening in the Cabinet
Verkhovna Rada Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk said:
“Today, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine appointed new members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. It’s no secret that the issue of strengthening government institutions has long been a subject of debate and discussion. And the key word here is “strengthening”. I believe that this is precisely why the changes took place.”
That is, he actually admitted that the previous ministers were weak, and now the Cabinet will be “strengthened”. But who exactly? Take, for example, the Ministry of Justice. Its leaders were traditionally associated with scandals, criminal proceedings were opened against almost each of them. Thus, on July 18, 2019, the SBI opened criminal proceedings No. 62019000000001071 on the grounds of a criminal offense provided for in Art. 364 of the Criminal Code “Abuse of power or official position” and Art. 369-2 of the CCU “Abuse of influence” regarding possible illegal actions of the former Minister of Justice Pavlo Petrenko.
In April 2021, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) of Ukraine initiated a criminal case against the Minister of Justice Denys Malyusyka, who was suspected of possibly illegally taking over the enterprise.
The new minister continued this inglorious tradition. In September 2023, the higher anti-corruption court scheduled the hearing of the so-called “Lukash case” about the appropriation of UAH 2.52 million. Among the accused are ex-Minister of Justice Olena Lukash and new Minister Olga Stefanishyna.
Can 32-year-old Herman Smetanin, who does not have enough life and professional experience for such a position, strengthen the work of the Ministry of Strategic Industries of Ukraine? He worked for one year at a time in various managerial positions and somehow made a rapid career from a tutor to the head of Ukroboronprom at such a young age.
Can we expect changes from such permutations? The pro-presidential wing of the parliament is sure that the so-called reset is the only available lever to change the power point by point in the absence of elections in conditions of war. They want to convince the people that not the main figures are to blame for all the troubles, but, as they say, “bad boyars”.
The president believes that we need “new energy”, but it does not come from old people, the new ministers are not new faces, they are people who, one way or another, were already in power and now they have simply been shuffled. It is very unfortunate that we often appoint people without specialized education and work experience to the positions of ministers, guided only by the principle of loyalty.
It should be emphasized that if the ministry is not engaged in the development and implementation of state policy, then it does not matter who heads it. At the same time, the merging and unification of ministries is a bad practice that paralyzes work for many months due to administrative and bureaucratic reasons and prevents effective work. In addition, when one person is responsible for several important areas, as, for example, Olga Stefanishyna, who is simultaneously the Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration and the Minister of Justice, one should not expect an effective result.
There is one more important question. Do the ministers understand the budget policy of the state? Only a lazy person does not criticize the government’s program – it is written primitively, without specifics, without priorities, without a strategy for accomplishing tasks. It passes to the level of regions, which in turn must adopt programs of socio-economic development of regions under which the state budget of Ukraine is formed. The absence of a master line at the national level leads to disorder at the regional level.
An equally important problem is the interaction between the government and the parliament. The government must rely on and maintain close contact with the parliament that appointed it. Ministers’ reports, their cooperation with specialized parliamentary committees, and parliament’s support of government draft laws are three key keys to the effectiveness of the Cabinet. However, in practice this is not the case. Ministers and deputies act according to the principle of the swan, crayfish and pike, as in the well-known fable.
Eleanor Roosevelt once said:
“Great people discuss ideas, medium – events, small – people.”
When there are no ideas, and events do not bring joy, all that remains is to discuss people, which is exactly what we have been offered to do now. Previously, large-scale personalities worked in the government – real professionals who knew their fields perfectly, were responsible for their every action and did not lose touch with society. Yes, they made mistakes, but these were the people the country raised to run systems. And who knows the new ministers? What useful things did they do in society? In this situation, it is not necessary to analyze the names of officials, but their strategies, policies, decisions and their consequences.
Most likely, the main purpose of these personnel changes is PR. It was not by chance that it coincided with the flow of negativity: the difficult situation at the front, strikes on Poltava, problems in the energy sector, corruption scandals. A massive reboot of the government should demonstrate to society that the government is aware of the problems, and therefore takes measures to organize more efficient work of the state apparatus.
It should be understood that the main problem is not with the ministers, but with the fact that the government is not the center of decision-making, as provided by the Constitution of Ukraine. Currently, key decisions are made in the Office of the President and Western partners. Without coordination with the USA and Europe, we do not take a single step – from appointments to the Constitutional Court to personnel issues of NABU and customs. Western representatives are included in all supervisory boards, while there are no Ukrainian representatives in any foreign board. This raises logical questions: do we not have real specialists capable of managing the country independently? Why are the decisions of the authorities aimed at transferring national assets to foreigners, such as subsoil, forest, land, strategic property, state banks? Do such steps really correspond to the national interests of Ukraine, for which our defenders are fighting, giving their lives?
The main criteria for the effectiveness of the Cabinet of Ministers’ work should, first of all, be the protection of the state’s national interests, a successful economy, developed industry and the social sphere, and the growth of the population and its income level. If the government continues such activities, Ukraine risks being left on the sidelines. Society will further lose confidence in the authorities, and this may lead to a deep crisis.
