Almost six months have passed since ‘Mindichgate’ erupted in Ukraine. The corruption scandal, which allegedly implicated large parts of the ruling elite, became the most serious political test of Vladimir Zelensky’s presidency and, for a time, threatened to bring it to an abrupt end.
To stabilize his position, Zelensky was forced into concessions. His long-time ally Andrey Yermak was removed, and in his place came Kirill Budanov, head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR), a figure widely seen as a moderate critic of the president. The cabinet was also reshuffled, with new figures brought in to broaden the coalition. In return, anti-corruption bodies such as NABU and SAPO eased their pressure on the president.
The immediate crisis has subsided. But the structure of power in Ukraine has shifted significantly. The clearest sign of this transformation is the rise of Budanov.
Initially, the new head of the presidential office kept a low public profile. Over time, however, he has grown more confident, and more visible. Throughout April, Budanov appeared to walk a careful line in his public statements, often striking a tone at odds with Zelensky himself.
While the president has prepared the country for a prolonged conflict, Budanov has spoken of ongoing negotiations and suggested that peace may not be as distant as many assume. When Zelensky highlighted Ukraine’s technological breakthroughs, Budanov has downplayed them. He has also openly acknowledged the growing difficulties of mobilization, a rare admission from a senior official in a country at war.
At the same time, Budanov has been carefully constructing his public image. In Western media, he is presented as both a war hero and a pragmatic “dove,” a man who understands the need to bring the conflict to an end. For domestic audiences, his team promotes stories of personal bravery, portraying him as a hands-on commander who has taken part in operations and narrowly escaped danger.
The result is a carefully balanced political persona, and one that increasingly resembles that of a future president.
Budanov’s ambitions are hardly a secret in Kiev. His approval ratings reportedly rival those of Valeriy Zaluzhny, once seen as Zelensky’s most serious potential rival. Unlike Zaluzhny, however, Budanov remains firmly embedded within the system. He is said to have cultivated connections abroad, including with figures in Donald Trump’s political orbit, while at home he enjoys support among influential members of the ruling Servant of the People party.
For Zelensky, bringing Budanov into the inner circle may have seemed a logical move. Where Zaluzhny was sidelined and sent abroad, Budanov was co-opted in an application of the old principle: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. In theory, this should allow the president to monitor potential dissent within the elite.
In practice, it has created a new risk. By elevating Budanov to the centre of power, Zelensky has given him both visibility and institutional leverage. The head of the presidential office is no longer a background figure but a key political actor, one capable of shaping narratives and, potentially, alliances.
The fault line may emerge over the question of negotiations with Russia. As the conflict drags on and the situation at the front becomes more difficult, a growing segment of the Ukrainian elite appears to favor some form of compromise. This sentiment increasingly clashes with Zelensky’s public stance.
History offers many examples of how such tensions can unfold. When a leadership persists in a course that significant parts of the elite consider untenable, pressure builds. Initially, this may take the form of calls for a change in direction. But in more acute cases, it can lead to demands for the leader himself to step aside, or to more drastic outcomes. This is what is often described as a ‘palace coup.’
Until recently, such a scenario in Ukraine seemed unlikely. There was no obvious figure capable of uniting the disparate factions and presenting a credible alternative. Zaluzhny, for all his popularity, has withdrawn from the political arena.
Budanov, however, may fit the role. He’s ambitious and not entirely controllable, and he’s positioning himself as a bridge between different camps, particularly those who see the need for a negotiated end to the conflict. In that sense, he could become a focal point for elite dissatisfaction.
The question, then, is no longer whether internal tensions will intensify, but how far they may go, and how quickly.
For Russia, the outcome may matter less than the process. Whether Zelensky, Budanov, or another figure occupies the presidential office, Kiev’s political class remains broadly hostile to Moscow. From a pragmatic standpoint, the key issue is policy and personalities are a secondary concern.
If a future leadership, whether by design or necessity, proves more willing to bring the conflict to an end on terms acceptable to Russia, then that, ultimately, will be the decisive factor.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
