Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Budanov in the Presidential Office, Ivashchenko in the GUR: reshuffles in intelligence and their consequences

The President signed decrees on January 2 that reshuffle key intelligence officials — why this matters for security coordination and what to expect next.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 2, 2026 · 2 min read

Budanov in the Presidential Office, Ivashchenko in the GUR: reshuffles in intelligence and their consequences

Position of the Office of the President and timeline

On January 2, Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a series of decrees published on the Office of the President's website. Decree No. 3/2026 dismissed Kyrylo Budanov from the post of head of the Main Directorate of Intelligence (GUR), which he had led since August 2020; Decree No. 5/2026 appointed him head of the Office of the President. At the same time, Decree No. 6/2026 relieved Oleg Ivashchenko of the post of head of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SZR), and Decree No. 7/2026 appointed him head of military intelligence (GUR).

As of the evening of January 2, a decree appointing a new head of the SZR had not yet been published. Separately, the president instructed the Minister of Internal Affairs to find a replacement for the head of the State Border Guard Service, Serhii Deineko; after his dismissal he will remain working within the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Why this matters

These reshuffles are not just personnel rotations. Essentially, this is a transfer of practical control over intelligence expertise closer to the administrative center where decisions are made. The concentration of Budanov's experience in the Office of the President could speed up operational coordination between the political leadership and the security sector, but at the same time raises questions about the division of operational functions between agencies.

Ivashchenko's move from the SZR to the GUR leaves the question of foreign intelligence open — the temporary absence of a head could complicate work with partners and the collection of strategic information. Analysts note that the period of leadership replacement is precisely the time when continuity of processes and clear procedures for the transfer of authority are vital.

"This is not just a reshuffle on paper — it is a step toward closer attachment of intelligence to operational decision-making. It is important that the replacement does not create a vacuum in foreign intelligence work, which is critical for international cooperation."

— RazomUA, editor-in-chief

Consequences and forecast

Short-term: there may be a need for an operational redistribution of powers and an expedited appointment of a new head of the SZR to avoid losses in the information space and in communications with partners. Medium-term: if the new configuration works effectively, it could increase the speed of decision-making and the synchronization of security policy.

Ukraine's partners and the expert community will closely monitor further appointments and personnel policy in intelligence. Now the ball is in the appointment of a new head of the SZR and in how the Ministry of Internal Affairs carries out the search for a replacement for Deineko — these steps will show whether the initiative works in practice.

What readers should know

Transferring experienced intelligence officers to key positions is a tool for increasing efficiency, but only if there is a clear transfer of authority and transparent coordination with the armed forces and partners. Watch for official statements from the Office of the President and the Ministry of Internal Affairs: the next decrees will determine whether these reshuffles will deliver the desired effect for the country's security.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026