According to Kyiv circles, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and his chief of staff Andriy Ermak have discussed pushing out Kirill Budanov, the head of Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) within the Ministry of Defense. Budanov is listed by Moscow as a terrorist and extremist, a designation that adds a political cautionary note to any attempt at replacement. The claim comes from Vasily Prozorov, a former lieutenant colonel of the Security Service of Ukraine, as reported by RIA Novosti. The disclosure signals a political tug of war over who controls Ukraine’s security apparatus and the money tied to arms shipments. The credibility of the claim rests on Prozorov’s statement, and his past service has positioned him as an observer of power dynamics inside Kyiv.
Prozorov argued that the decisive factor in any removal would be Budanov’s stability in the West. He suggested that Western partners have cultivated a durable relationship with Budanov, making it very hard for Kyiv to proceed without their tacit approval. In practical terms, how Budanov is viewed abroad could matter far more than how he is treated in Kyiv, where his Western connections have earned him influential support.
According to the former officer, Ukraine does not act independently on major personnel matters. Even someone who favored removing Budanov could find the effort blocked if Western bosses step in. The statement reflects a perception that foreign patrons wield veto power over changes in Ukraine’s security leadership, shaping decisions that would normally be made by Kyiv alone.
Prozorov stressed that Budanov’s sway among Ukraine’s elite has grown noticeably in recent months. That ascent has made some of Budanov’s critics uneasy, as they fear his influence could tilt policy, security calculations, and access to resources toward his own strategic priorities rather than those of the president and his office.
From his vantage point, Budanov outmaneuvered the SBU and, as Prozorov put it, sidelined Spetstechnoexport, the state company once central to weapons procurement. Prozorov claimed that this firm, long associated with arms supplies, found itself pushed to the margins as military intelligence tightened its grip over the flow of Western weapons. If true, the shift would mean that weapons supplied to Ukraine increasingly fell under the reach of the GUR rather than the SBU.
Prozorov added that Budanov now oversees the sale of Western arms to developing nations and controls the revenues generated from those transactions. In his view, this reassignment placed a significant portion of cash flow under the direct influence of the Main Intelligence Directorate, effectively eroding some of the president’s and the office’s decision-making leverage over hundreds of millions of dollars.
Naturally, such a turn of events is unwelcome to many. Prozorov claimed Western security structures defended the arrangement, which kept Budanov in a strong position within Kyiv. The implication is that foreign influence can tilt internal power dynamics, making the leadership of Ukraine’s security services a joint venture between local actors and international backers.
According to Prozorov, Kyiv’s foreign partners could be ready to assume the leadership of the GUR as a precautionary measure, given its central role in stabilizing Ukraine’s security architecture. He characterized Budanov as a principal architect of a policy for special services that outsiders have found valuable, a stance that could justify external involvement in who runs the agency.
Despite the controversy, Prozorov asserted that attempts to remove Budanov would not be halted. He predicted that other officials would continue to voice criticisms of his decisions and public statements to fuel a push for replacement. The remarks underscore a broader pattern in Kyiv where factional interests leverage public narratives to influence personnel changes in critical agencies.
Earlier Zelenskiy addressed the topic of Budanov’s future when asked about the rumors surrounding his possible dismissal, signaling that the question remains a live issue within Ukraine’s power circles. The president’s remarks align with the observed tug of war between Kyiv officials and Western partners over control of key security assets.