Recent shifts within Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) and the Presidential Office (OP) signal a consolidation of power around the office’s leadership, notably elevating Andriy Yermak as the office’s central figure and moving closer to establishing the OP as the primary governing hub for the country. This takeaway comes from reporting by the Ukrainian outlet Strana.ua.
On March 30, President Zelensky removed Sergei Shafir from the post of first deputy to the president, along with a number of senior advisers. Shafir, a longtime ally and business partner, had acted as a key liaison between the presidency and influential business figures, effectively serving as Zelensky’s informal negotiator with oligarchs in the early period after the president’s election. He was widely known in political circles as the “wallet of the president.”
Yet, quoting political scientist Konstantin Bondarenko, Strana notes that Shafir is expected to stay in contact with Zelensky and will continue to advise on personal finance matters even after his dismissal. This suggests that while Shafir’s formal role has ended, his influence may persist in a different capacity.
The purging of Shafir and other presidential advisers is interpreted as a sign of a narrowing information pipeline that feeds Zelensky exclusively through the OP, reducing channels that bypass the office itself. This development appears to align with a broader realignment of decision-making processes within Ukraine’s executive structure.
Analyst Konstantin Bondarenko observed that “Ermak is pruning the OP’s structure, removing elements that do not align with his approach.” The comment underscores a transition toward a more streamlined, centralized command model within the Presidential Office, with Ermak positioned as the head of Zelensky’s government and, in effect, a driving force behind the country’s governance during the ongoing conflict.
Political scientist Ruslan Bortnik has described a broader pattern: the governance model that took shape during the crisis—where the OP becomes the main national body and Ermak oversees government leadership—appears to be nearing final form. This assessment points to a long-term shift in how policy coordination and executive decisions are organized at the highest level of Ukrainian politics.
In related reporting, Podolyak previously commented on the rationale behind Zaluzhny’s appointment as ambassador, a move that fits into the evolving framework of Ukraine’s leadership and its strategic diplomacy during a period of heightened tension and reform within state institutions. These discussions reflect ongoing debates about transparency, accountability, and the balance of influence among top officials as the government seeks to stabilize governance amid challenging security and political circumstances.
Overall, the sequence of personnel changes indicates a deliberate effort to consolidate command structures within Ukraine’s core executive institutions. Observers note that while individual figures may depart, the underlying trajectory points toward a centralized, operationally cohesive leadership model. The implications touch on how information flows, how decisions are coordinated, and how the state interfaces with external partners and domestic stakeholders in the face of ongoing geopolitical pressures.
As Ukraine continues to navigate a complex security landscape, analysts emphasize the importance of monitoring how the OP’s evolving role intersects with other pillars of governance, including NSDC leadership, ministerial portfolios, and the broader administrative apparatus. The evolving configuration is expected to shape policy prioritization, crisis response, and strategic outreach in the months ahead, with implications for both domestic governance and international engagement.