Smells Like Lapti: Who’s Really Cheering Malyuk’s Exit?

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Rumours surrounding the future of SBU chief Vasyl Malyuk are no longer confined to the sidelines, sources in the Office of the President say.

Releasing this information now —“at a moment of intense and difficult talks with allies about continued support for Ukraine in the face of Putin’s demands — is hardly accidental. Western partners are openly saying that their current assessment of Ukraine’s prospects in the war hinges on depriving Russia of the resources needed to finance the war and sustain military operations. They point, in particular, to the successful disruption of Russia’s “shadow fleet” by SBU drone strikes and to the reported 30 per cent reduction in Russian oil exports as a result of those attacks.

This is precisely the argument Ukraine is making: Ukraine can hold out; supporting it still makes sense; there is no reason to bow to Putin’s ultimatum. And all of this is inseparable from the current incarnation of the Security Service — a combat-ready special service effectively built from scratch under Malyuk. Before that, Ukraine did not have a wartime special service capable of acting as a direct and powerful instrument of war. Few believed the SBU could exert such a tangible influence on the course of a brutal conflict — or directly shape allies’ perceptions of Ukraine’s military capabilities.

Now, however, there is talk of removing one of the most effective — and, crucially, the most spectacular (which, for Trump, is often the decisive factor) — pillars underpinning Zelenskyy’s case to the world that Ukraine does not have to surrender. The crippled tanker fleet is a “card” in Zelenskyy’s hand, to use Trump’s preferred language. The shut-down refineries are another. The Crimean Bridge — struck three times in highly visible and strategically disruptive attacks on Russian military logistics — is yet another.

And yet, there appears to be an effort to knock these “cards” out of Zelenskyy’s hand at precisely the moment when he is engaged in near-daily talks with Western leaders.

There is another dimension to this issue, one that is far closer to the immediate interests of Ukraine’s European allies. One by one, they are now openly acknowledging the very real military threat Russia poses to them and are developing national and joint defence strategies in response. In recent weeks, Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, Finland, Poland and the Baltic States have all made statements to this effect, with France signalling a similar turn.

Crucially, many of these countries have explicitly noted that their evolving defence concepts draw heavily on Ukrainian tactical and technological innovations — on lessons derived from the combat-capable security service built under Malyuk during this war. In practical terms, each of these allies has a direct interest in working with the SBU to gain access to this unique experience.

Under such circumstances, the dismissal of Malyuk — even if framed as a “transfer” — would be incomprehensible to these governments, because it directly affects their own security interests. Even rumours of a possible removal have already weakened Zelenskyy’s position in these discussions, having caused what diplomats would politely describe as “sincere misunderstanding and deep concern”.

It is not officially known who, precisely, is urging Zelenskyy to saw off the branch on which he is sitting — though the broader picture is clear enough. But one need only imagine how Zelenskyy would look if he were to bring this issue to a vote in the Verkhovna Rada — the constitutional mechanism for dismissing the head of the SBU. The necessary votes would not materialize.

And that is hardly surprising. This is not about quiet personnel manoeuvring behind the scenes. It is about defence capability — and, ultimately, about resistance versus surrender. Everyone involved understands that.

All of this lends weight to the possibility that the idea is being externally encouraged, regardless of who is formally pushing it on Zelenskyy. After all, who would benefit from provoking the effective decapitation of a unit responsible for a substantial share of successful strikes on the Russian military and its war economy? The result would be predictable: disorganisation, the suspension of ongoing special operations, and months of disruption at the height of a winter offensive.

It would also mean frustrated European partners. It would deprive Trump of the kind of moments that make him say “Wow” when presented with updates on “what’s happening in Ukraine and Russia”. And Zelenskyy’s visibly weakened position after a failed attempt to push such a decision through would hardly be unwelcome in the Kremlin.

In short, this idea reeks — it smells of foot cloths and lapti.

Meanwhile, the Verkhovna Rada clarified the situation regarding the possible dismissal of SBU head Vasyl Malyuk and his potential replacement. According to People’s Deputy Yaroslav Zheleznyak, the president suggested today that Malyuk submit a resignation and assume the position of head of the Foreign Intelligence Service. He was also offered the role of secretary of the National Security and Defense Council. According to the deputy, Malyuk rejected both options and insists on remaining in his current position at the SBU.

In early December, reports emerged that Andriy Yermak, the former head of the President’s Office, sought to push for the dismissal of SBU chief Vasyl Malyuk just a week before his own resignation amid a corruption scandal. Yermak allegedly pressured Malyuk throughout that week, demanding his resignation, reportedly believing that the SBU head had “overlooked” Operation Midas and failed to provide him protection.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.