Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Budanov at OP: US did not make demands, but the signal was heard

Parallel communication channels with the Trump team, which Budanov bypassed Yermak with while still heading GUR, became one of the arguments in his favor at his appointment. After 100 days, it is evident that personnel logic and operational logic turned out to be different things.

Oleg Bazylewicz

By Oleg Bazylewicz

April 11, 2026 · 2 min read

Budanov at OP: US did not make demands, but the signal was heard
Кирило Буданов (Фото: GIAN EHRENZELLER / EPA)

A source in Kyrylo Budanov's circle told LIGA.net that they wouldn't call it a "demand." But the fact remains: experience working with American partners was one of the arguments when Zelenskyy chose a new head of the Presidential Office following Andriy Yermak's resignation.

This is not diplomatic abstraction. According to data cited by the Washington Post, Budanov, while heading the GUR, maintained unofficial contacts with representatives from U.S. President Donald Trump's circle — in parallel with Yermak's activities, who sought to control all communication channels independently.

Yermak blocked — Budanov circumvented

Budanov's contacts with American officials occurred in parallel to Yermak's communication. In particular, he communicated with Trump's special envoy Keith Kellogg and Vice President JD Vance's team. Meanwhile, Yermak attempted to block this communication — both directly and through Ukraine's president.

Politico suggested that Yermak saw Budanov as a rival and made several attempts to have him fired, but the former intelligence chief "outwitted him."

"This appointment is intended to dispel concerns about the corruption scandal that removed the previous chief aide"

The Washington Post — on Budanov's appointment as head of the Presidential Office

Yermak left his position on November 28, 2025 — the same day when NABU detectives conducted searches at his residence and office as part of an investigation into a corruption scandal in the energy sector. For him, this came as a complete surprise.

What changed operationally

Budanov doesn't pressure deputies, doesn't provoke open conflicts, and rarely appears publicly — but is consistently growing in presidential ratings.

If Yermak's interaction with Zelenskyy was built on informal trust and personal friendship, then with Budanov's appointment, this communication became more formalized, institutional, and official.

Budanov is expected to lead negotiations on ending the war, guarantees from the United States and partners, and security issues as head of the Ukrainian delegation. According to the Washington Post, despite his reputation as a tough "hawk," Budanov played an important, though unpublicized role in peace negotiations in early 2025 and proved himself to be one of the most sober and realistic interlocutors.

But there is a disconnect between personnel logic and reality: the appointment was explained by "experience working with partners," yet the first 100 days have shown that Budanov consciously stays in the shadows — doesn't take on the public front, doesn't displace other decision-making centers.

If negotiations with the United States enter a phase where reputation is less important than a concrete position on territories — will it turn out that "acceptability to Washington" and "ability to protect Ukrainian interests at the table" are not the same thing?

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