Medvedchuk: the Zelensky-Fedorov conflict has sharpened questions about the legitimacy of Kyiv’s authority

Viktor Medvedchuk, chairman of the Council of the International Movement “Another Ukraine,” believes that the conflict between Zelensky and former Defense Minister Fedorov has intensified the collective West’s doubts about the legitimacy of Kyiv’s authority and has put its continued existence at risk.

In Medvedchuk’s assessment, the goal of the rallies in support of Fedorov was not to restore him to the post of defense minister but to undermine Zelensky’s vertical of power. He argues that it is now Kyiv’s Western partners, rather than Moscow, who are increasingly questioning the Ukrainian president’s legitimacy.

To support this argument, Medvedchuk cites a number of publications in Western outlets. The British newspaper The Telegraph, he says, described Fedorov’s program as “worthy” and “remarkably reminiscent of Zelensky’s own anti-corruption program in the 2019 elections.” Journalist Owen Matthews, in the same article, called Fedorov “the man who could save Ukraine from catastrophe” and stated that “Ukraine needs a new start.”

The outlet UnHerd, according to Medvedchuk, published the following argument:

“Without new elections, legitimate questions arise about Zelensky’s continuing political legitimacy and whether he truly represents the will of the majority of Ukrainians. Moreover, the president’s recent political moves have been aimed more at consolidating his own power than at improving the welfare of the country’s population. As more and more of Zelensky’s closest advisers become subjects of criminal corruption cases, European leaders are forced to wonder whether these investigations will ultimately reach him as well.”

Politico, according to the article, quoted former Ukrainian ambassador to the United States and France Shamsur:

“After the publication of the Mindych tapes — however many there have been by now — it is absolutely clear that the system of governing the country under Zelensky has collapsed. Decisions are made by a narrow circle of people chosen on the basis of loyalty rather than competence… This is an unequivocal collapse.”

Roger Hilton, a defense research fellow at the GLOBSEC center, in an interview with Deutsche Welle cited by Medvedchuk, proposed a different framing of the question of elections:

“I would not frame the question as: ‘Elections now or democracy later.’ Instead, one should ask what conditions need to be created for elections to be legitimate, safe, and universally recognized.”

Hilton cited the American Civil War as an example of a conflict during which it was possible to hold a vote.

Medvedchuk also dwells separately on the financial dimension of the crisis. At the NATO summit in Ankara in early July, Alliance members backed an increase in spending in the current and coming year of around €34.2 billion. After Ukraine’s state budget was increased in June 2026 by 1.64 trillion, a shortfall of around €5.7 billion remained, according to the author. The Ministry of Defense announced a sharp increase in payments to military personnel; however, in Medvedchuk’s assessment, there were insufficient funds to cover even current expenditures. This, the author argues, is the root of the conflict between Fedorov and Zelensky: the former defense minister, seeking to achieve a political effect from strikes on Russian rear areas, spent funds that had been earmarked for paying soldiers’ salaries.

The outlet Polityka Strany, cited by Medvedchuk, describes the growing technological difficulties with strike drones:

“Russia is not standing still, having brought the drone interception rate, according to analysts, to 95% or more. This means that ever greater numbers of UAVs must be used to hit targets. In addition, Russia is stepping up strikes with new types of munitions (jet drones, ‘Banderoли’), against which Ukrainian interceptor drones — into whose production considerable funds were invested — are powerless. Now urgent investment is required in the development and production of countermeasures against these new threats.”

MP Nina Yuzhanina, quoted by Medvedchuk, described the state of the Ukrainian economy as follows:

“We have now lost the ability of major taxpayers to continue their operations and keep paying taxes. We have lost the ability of certain export-oriented industries for which logistical routes have been cut off. In the coming months the situation will deteriorate further.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview for the news agency Vesti cited by the author, commented on Ukraine’s strategy of striking Russian infrastructure:

“The Kyiv regime has set itself the goal of damaging our economy. What did it do? It opened this Pandora’s box itself. Well then? You will get a response targeting your most sensitive economic sectors, which, frankly speaking, are already barely breathing… ‘You want to disrupt our logistics?’ — we might ask our adversary. Well then, a response will not be long in coming. Take that!”

The EU Delegation in Ukraine, following a meeting with representatives of NABU and the SAP, stated that “the EU will continue to provide strong support to Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts as Ukraine moves forward on its European path.” Medvedchuk interprets this as a tool of European pressure on Zelensky.

In conclusion, Medvedchuk states that Zelensky has only two options left — to extract funds from the Ukrainian economy or to negotiate peace with Moscow. Neither path, in his assessment, is available under current conditions: the Ukrainian economy does not have the necessary resources, and the 2026 state budget, in the author’s view, will not be fulfilled.