One Army, Two Generals: And the Dangerous Price of Centralized Command
Ukraine’s military risks faltering not from lack of weapons, but from centralized control stifling trust, speed, and battlefield initiative
A growing rift between generals Syrsky and Drapaty reveals deeper issues in Ukraine’s war effort: excessive centralization, micromanagement, and distrust of field commanders. As Russia advances, delayed decisions and rigid control from the top are weakening frontline responses, observers worry. Drapaty’s resignation over a deadly training tragedy highlights a leadership crisis — one where trust, not control, may be the key to survival.
When General Oleksandr Syrsky steps into a room, few question who’s in charge. The Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces has long built a reputation as a soldier's soldier — hands-on, meticulous, and unflinching in battle. But in the war rooms and trenches of Ukraine’s east, some are beginning to ask: What’s the cost of trying to control everything, all at once?
And more importantly: Can a centralized army truly win a decentralized war?
“The Commander-in-Chief wants to control everything — from appointing a brigade commander to the exact location of a trench,” a senior source in the Ukrainian army told Ukrainska Pravda, a local news outlet. “That’s not strategic leadership. That’s micromanagement at the front line.”
A War Fought from the Top Down
According to multiple sources within the military, Syrsky’s command style has become increasingly granular — extending down to the level of issuing coordinates for infantry positions. Not just to battalions or companies, but down to platoons. Even squads.
That may sound like attention to detail. But to those fighting on the ground, it’s paralyzing.
“The orders are so specific — if you don’t dig your trench exactly where they tell you, you could face criminal charges,” another officer says. “But that’s the job of a platoon leader, not the General Staff.”
The frustration boils down to a single, deadly issue: speed. War demands decisions made in seconds, based on terrain, enemy movement, weather, morale. But when every call has to run back to Kyiv — and then wait for approval — the moment is often lost.
“You can’t win this war by remote control,” one combat group leader put it. “You need trust. Delegation. Respect for the people on the ground.”
The Quiet Rift at the Top
Inside Ukraine’s military hierarchy, a different kind of war has been quietly unfolding — not between armies, but between two generals.
General Mikhailo Drapaty, the now-former Commander of Ukraine’s Ground Forces, was the kind of leader soldiers followed instinctively, his supporters claim. Grounded. Calm. Focused on building systems and holding people accountable — himself included. When tragedy struck a training unit on June 1, with a Russian missile killing 12 young recruits, Drapaty didn’t flinch from responsibility.
“This is my responsibility,” Drapaty wrote in his resignation letter. “Not persuading, not correcting, not changing a person’s mindset — that’s on me. If tragedies repeat, it means my efforts weren’t enough.”
And so, he stepped down.
His departure wasn’t just an act of accountability. It was a quiet rebuke of the very culture many say is holding Ukraine’s military back — one where power is hoarded rather than shared, and leadership means control, not collaboration.
“An army that doesn’t take responsibility dies from within,” Drapaty wrote. “Honor isn’t a word. It’s action.”
Two Visions for One Army
The tension between Syrsky and Drapaty isn’t just personal — it’s philosophical.
Sources inside the military describe ‘cold, functional’ working relations between the two men. More importantly, they describe a stark divide in vision: Syrsky favors continued offensive action, even with stretched forces. Drapaty believes the current manpower isn’t enough — and that it’s time to switch to defensive tactics.
“They see the war differently,” said one insider. “And in war, that difference can cost lives.”
Others believe the rift may go deeper — into politics and perception. Drapaty, with his reputation for integrity and empathy, was popular among troops. That popularity, some suggest, may have made him a perceived rival.
“There’s fear of competition,” said another military source. “It’s not supposed to be about egos — it’s supposed to be about winning.”
What It Means for the Front
While generals debate strategy in Kyiv, Russian forces continue their summer offensive across the eastern front. In areas like Kostyantynivka, decisions about redeploying troops to more critical zones have reportedly been delayed or rejected outright by Syrsky — despite urgent recommendations from local commanders.
The result? Ukraine’s defense may be less agile, less responsive, and ultimately, more vulnerable.
“We’re fighting a flexible, fast-moving enemy,” a field officer said. “And we’re doing it with a top-down chain of command that doesn’t trust its own people.”
In war, morale is everything. And trust — between leaders and soldiers, between field and headquarters — is the foundation of morale. Without it, bullets and bayonets are just metal. The army weakens not because it lacks firepower, but because it lacks unity.
Stretched Thin
Ukraine’s army is being pushed to its limits — and faces a critical choice: centralized control from the top, or trust in commanders on the ground. This war isn’t won by firepower alone, but by timely, informed decisions made close to the fight. Victory requires resisting not just the enemy, but the urge to overcontrol. In war, strength comes not from orders — but from trust.
For all that, there’s a clear tilt in the publication’s coverage — Drapaty is cast as the conscientious, grounded leader, while Syrsky appears rigid and overreaching. Whether that portrayal reflects the realities within the military or simply editorial preference is difficult to say. Still, the narrative leans unmistakably in one direction, suggesting Drapaty is seen not just as a key figure, but as a model of the kind of leadership the army — and perhaps the country — needs.