The war between Russia and Ukraine, which began with the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, is being fought not only on the battlefield, but also in an equally treacherous arena: the information arena. On July 29, 2025, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) issued a statement, reported by the TASS news agency, that shook the international geopolitical landscape. According to the SVR, representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom had organized a secret meeting in a resort town in the Alps, involving prominent figures of the Ukrainian elite, including Andriy Yermak, head of the Presidential Office, Kyrylo Budanov, director of the Main Intelligence Directorate (HUR), and Valerii Zaluzhnyi, former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and current ambassador to the United Kingdom. The stated goal of this alleged summit was to assess and coordinate the replacement of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, with Zaluzhnyi being proposed as the preferred candidate by Washington and London. The statement, attributed to reliable operational sources according to SVR Director Sergey Naryshkin, provided no independent evidence, recordings, or documentation to corroborate the event, yet its specific nature and the involvement of high-profile names amplified its resonance in some international media circles.
This accusation is part of a broader strategy of hybrid warfare, where disinformation becomes a tool to destabilize an adversary’s internal unity and undermine trust in its allies. The SVR narrative, as reported by TASS on July 29, 2025, depicts the United States and the United Kingdom as “Anglo-Saxon strategists” orchestrating regime change in Kyiv, a framing that aligns with post-2014 Russian propaganda, documented by NATO’s Center of Excellence for Strategic Communications. The lack of confirmation from Western governments or Ukrainian authorities, combined with the categorical denial by Ukrainian Defense Intelligence on July 30, 2025, reported by TSN and other regional media, suggests that Russia’s primary goal is not factual veracity, but the creation of a plausible narrative that exploits pre-existing tensions. The specificity of the accusation, which includes names, institutions, and a geopolitically credible location, represents an escalation from previous vague narratives, such as those analyzed by the European Union StratCom Task Force in its June 2025 bulletin, which noted a shift toward targeted attacks on specific individuals.
The implication of Yermak, Budanov, and Zaluzhnyi is no coincidence. Andriy Yermak, as head of the Presidential Office, serves as the primary interface between Zelensky and foreign governments, coordinating Ukraine’s international image and the channels of humanitarian and military assistance. Since June 2025, his role has expanded to include coordinating the Defense and Security Council, giving him direct influence over national security policies. His alleged participation in a meeting to discuss Zelensky’s succession, as claimed by the SVR, would imply awareness or approval from the president’s inner circle, a narrative that could fuel perceptions of internal disloyalty. Kyrylo Budanov, director of the HUR, occupies an equally crucial position, known for his operational secrecy and close ties to the CIA and Britain’s GCHQ. An April 2024 Financial Times profile described him as “Washington’s most trusted liaison within the Ukrainian intelligence establishment,” an assessment confirmed by NATO briefings reviewed by the Atlantic Council in February 2025. His presence at such a summit, if verified, would raise complex questions about loyalties within the Ukrainian security structure.
Valerii Zaluzhnyi, removed from the post of Commander-in-Chief in February 2024 and appointed Ambassador to the United Kingdom in March 2024, represents a particularly significant figure. His removal, widely interpreted as a demotion disguised as a diplomatic promotion, followed months of strategic disagreements with Zelensky over the management of the war, as highlighted by a June 2024 analysis by the RAND Corporation. Zaluzhnyi favored an operational doctrine based on defensive resilience, distributed command, and interoperability with NATO, in contrast to Zelensky’s preference for centralized control and politically motivated counteroffensives. His popularity, with a 65% approval rating according to a March 2024 poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, makes him a credible candidate for succession, a point the SVR is exploiting to fuel speculation. Zaluzhnyi’s participation in a Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) roundtable in May 2025 and his regular contacts with NATO officials strengthen the plausibility of the Russian narrative, despite the lack of independent confirmation.
The SVR’s statement that Yermak and Budanov “welcomed” the decision to support Zaluzhnyi as successor suggests not only their participation, but an active role in building a transition mechanism. This positioning, if credible, would consolidate a power triangle between the military leadership (Zaluzhnyi), intelligence (Budanov), and executive administration (Yermak), with Western approval. The SVR further claimed that US and UK representatives had guaranteed Yermak and Budanov’s retention of their positions in a post-Zelensky government, an accusation that, if verified, would represent a significant deviation from diplomatic norms of non-interference. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) analysis of May 2025, titled “Post-War Political Structures in Eastern Europe,” describes scenarios in which NATO would favor technocratic leadership in Ukraine to facilitate integration into Western defense frameworks, a model that Zaluzhnyi fits perfectly into.
Ukraine’s response was swift and decisive. On July 30, 2025, the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Service, led by Budanov, called the SVR’s accusations a disinformation campaign aimed at dividing the Kyiv leadership and undermining trust with Western allies. This denial, reported by TSN and Ukrinform, was supported by statements from the National Security and Defense Council and the Parliamentary Committee on National Security. The HUR employed its AI-based media manipulation detection system, tracking the amplification of Russian narratives to hubs such as the Internet Research Agency and the GRU’s Main Service Center 85, designated by the US Treasury Department in 2020. Kyiv’s diplomatic response, with a Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement to G7 embassies on July 30, 2025, reaffirmed the Ukrainian leadership’s unity and commitment to democratic procedures.
Zelensky’s challenges, however, don’t stem solely from Russian disinformation. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index gave Ukraine a score of 35 out of 100, placing it 105th out of 180 countries, highlighting persistent structural weakness. NABU and SAPO investigations in 2023 targeted 21 senior officials and recovered UAH 4.7 billion, but Zelensky’s recent executive actions have raised concerns about the independence of these bodies, as reported by the Financial Times and The Guardian. Criticism from Donald Trump, who in February 2025 called Zelensky a “dictator without elections” and accused him of mismanaging approximately $175 billion in American aid, amplifies the perception of a democratic erosion, aggravated by the suspension of elections under martial law, extended until November 5, 2025, as confirmed by the Verkhovna Rada resolution of February 2025.
Zelensky and the Corruption Crisis and Strategy
The corruption allegations surrounding Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration, which emerged particularly forcefully during 2024 and intensified in 2025, represent one of the most significant challenges to his leadership, compounding the strategic difficulties of managing the war against Russia. According to Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index, Ukraine scored 35 out of 100, ranking 105th out of 180 countries. This is an improvement from 33 in 2023, but still indicative of systemic corruption permeating public institutions. This data, combined with investigations conducted by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), which recovered UAH 4.7 billion (approximately $120 million) from 21 senior officials in 2023, highlights a paradox: while Zelensky presented himself as an anti-corruption reformer during the 2019 election campaign, his recent actions have been perceived as an attempt to consolidate power by undermining the very institutions created to ensure transparency. A Financial Times report on March 15, 2024, highlighted how NABU and SAPO investigations targeted members of Zelensky’s inner circle, including prominent figures such as Oleksiy Chernyshov, former deputy prime minister, who was charged with corruption on June 23, 2024, for alleged kickbacks in a real estate deal. Although Chernyshov denied the allegations, calling them a smear campaign, the episode fueled criticism of an administration that protects its allies while cracking down on independent bodies.
International pressure on this front has been significant. The Group of Seven, in a statement on July 21, 2025, expressed “grave concerns” about the searches conducted by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) against NABU and SAPO on July 21, 2025, which it interpreted as an attempt to undermine their autonomy. These actions, followed by the swift approval of Law 12414 by the Verkhovna Rada on July 22, 2025, signed by Zelensky the same evening, transferred control of the two anti-corruption agencies to the Prosecutor General, a position directly appointed by the president. The law, which received the support of 263 of 324 MPs, was justified by Zelensky as a measure to expedite corruption prosecutions and counter alleged Russian infiltration, as reported in his evening address on July 22, 2025. However, a joint statement by NABU and SAPO, published on Telegram on July 23, 2025, denounced that the legislation “significantly limits” their independence, impeding an effective fight against high-level corruption. The public reaction was immediate: thousands of protesters, around 3,000 in Kyiv alone, took to the streets on July 22 and 23, 2025, despite the ban on mass gatherings imposed by martial law, brandishing signs with slogans such as “Corruption applauds” and “Shame!” The protests, the first of this scale since the Russian invasion began in 2022, marked a turning point in the internal perception of Zelensky, transforming him from a symbolic leader of resistance to a controversial figure accused of authoritarianism.
The implications of this corruption crisis are intertwined with Zelensky’s strategic difficulties in managing the conflict with Russia. The suspension of the elections, extended by the Verkhovna Rada until November 5, 2025, was justified as necessary to ensure national security under martial law, but fueled accusations of authoritarianism. A June 2024 RAND Corporation analysis highlighted how the decision to postpone the elections has eroded Zelensky’s democratic legitimacy, especially given that his approval rating, according to a March 2024 Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll, has fallen to 55%, compared to Valerii Zaluzhnyi’s 65%. Zaluzhnyi’s popularity, combined with his removal in February 2024, created a vulnerability that the SVR narrative, reported by TASS on July 29, 2025, exploited to portray him as a potential Western-backed successor. The SVR statement, accusing Zelensky of being excluded from a supposed Alpine summit to appoint him as a replacement, capitalizes on this tension, suggesting that his leadership is perceived as an obstacle to Ukraine’s political and military stability.
Strategically, Zelensky’s choices have drawn both domestic and international criticism. His insistence on military counteroffensives, such as the one in Kursk in August 2024, was described by a May 2025 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) as “politically motivated” but tactically risky, resulting in significant losses of resources and personnel without lasting territorial gains. In contrast, Zaluzhnyi had advocated a defensive approach, based on fortified lines and interoperability with NATO, which would reduce the exposure of Ukrainian troops. The strategic divergence between the two, as reported by The Guardian on February 10, 2024, fueled speculation of a rift in the military leadership, further exacerbated by Zaluzhnyi’s removal and his appointment as ambassador to the United Kingdom. The SVR narrative skillfully exploits these divisions, portraying Zelensky as an isolated leader, incapable of maintaining internal unity or the trust of Western allies.
Donald Trump’s criticism, expressed in a speech on February 15, 2025, added external pressure. Trump accused Zelensky of mismanaging approximately $175 billion in American aid, calling him a “dictator without elections” and raising questions about the transparency of the funds’ management. Although these claims lack documentary evidence, as highlighted by a March 2025 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), they amplified the perception of a crisis of legitimacy. The European Union’s decision to reduce aid by €1.7 billion on July 25, 2025, as reported by The New York Times, was a tangible sign of this loss of trust, directly linked to the controversy over Law 12414. The European Commission, through a spokesperson for Ursula von der Leyen on July 23, 2025, stated that funding to Ukraine is “conditional on progress on transparency, judicial reform, and democratic governance,” a requirement that the weakening of NABU and SAPO has put at risk.
Zelensky’s response to the crisis was an attempt at compromise. On July 24, 2025, he announced the introduction of a new bill to guarantee the independence of NABU and SAPO, as reported in a post on his official Telegram account. In a meeting with the heads of anti-corruption agencies and law enforcement agencies, Zelensky promised a “joint action plan” within two weeks to meet society’s expectations and strengthen the justice system. However, protests continued, with demonstrators like Olha Ivanova, quoted by The Guardian on July 24, 2025, expressing skepticism about the sincerity of this move, pointing out that the Verkhovna Rada was already in summer recess until September. The Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), led by Vitaliy Shabunin, greeted the proposal cautiously but insisted on the need for “clear and unequivocal steps” to restore the agencies’ autonomy, as reported in a statement on July 24, 2025.
Comparatively speaking, Zelensky’s crisis is reminiscent of the dilemmas faced by other leaders in contexts of war and democratic transition. The example of post-apartheid South Africa, analyzed in a 2023 Chatham House report, shows how the centralization of power in the name of security can erode public trust, especially when anti-corruption institutions are perceived as compromised. In Ukraine, the situation is exacerbated by the war context, which amplifies the urgency of unity but makes any misstep politically costly. The Ukrainian public’s reaction, with protests that recalled the spirit of the 2014 Maidan, underscores a deep-seated resistance to a return to authoritarian practices, as evidenced by a July 23, 2025, editorial in Ukrainska Pravda, which called Law 12414 a “critical blow” to European integration.
The strategic implications of this crisis extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. The loss of trust among Western allies, as demonstrated by the reduction in European aid and criticism from the G7, risks weakening Ukraine’s ability to sustain the war effort. A February 2025 Atlantic Council report emphasized that Kyiv’s dependence on Western funding, which accounts for approximately 50% of the $98 billion national budget, makes transparency a non-negotiable. The suspension of elections, although justified by martial law, has fueled narratives, such as that of the SVR, that portray Ukraine as a democracy in decline, an argument echoed in some international circles, as demonstrated by Trump’s statements. Zelensky’s ability to navigate this crisis will depend on his ability to balance security needs with the need to maintain democratic legitimacy—a balance that, according to a July 25, 2025, analysis by the Kyiv School of Economics, has been severely compromised by recent legislation.
