Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Possible dismissal of Malyuk: what a change in SBU leadership would mean for Ukraine's security

LIGA.net cites sources reporting the likely resignation of Vasyl Malyuk and the possible appointment of "Alpha" commander Yevhen Khmara. We examine why this matters now and what consequences it could have for the security service's operational work and partners' trust.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 5, 2026 · 2 min read

Possible dismissal of Malyuk: what a change in SBU leadership would mean for Ukraine's security

What sources report

Two interlocutors of LIGA.net, close to the Defense Forces, said that the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Vasyl Malyuk, may resign. One of them claims that Malyuk has allegedly already agreed to write a resignation letter. Sources emphasize: the situation is dynamic, and no final decision has been made yet.

Who could become the next head

Major General of the SBU Yevhen Khmara is named as a possible successor; on 25 August 2025 he was appointed head of the Special Operations Center "A" ("Alpha"). This unit is responsible for counterterrorist and special operations — that is, for the operational component that has a direct impact on security at the front and in the rear.

Political background and reactions

“I find it very hard to believe that the Verkhovna Rada — understanding how Vasyl Malyuk and the SBU operate, in particular what we see regarding the Russian Federation and spies, and in general — will find the votes.”

— Roman Kostenko, people's deputy (faction "Holos")

Deputies and some political actors have already expressed support for Malyuk; MP Kostenko doubts that the Verkhovna Rada will back his dismissal. LIGA.net also sought comment from the SBU and the commander of "Alpha", but had not received responses at the time of publication.

Earlier, on 2 January, a number of media outlets (including Ukrainska Pravda) wrote about possible reshuffles in the security bloc — among other things mentioning options to transfer Malyuk to other structures or changes at the head of the SBU. On the same day the president made personnel appointments in other services: Budanov — to the Office of the President, Ivashchenko — to the Main Intelligence Directorate (HUR).

Why this matters

Changing the head of the SBU is not just a personnel matter. Continuity of counterintelligence, coordination of special operations and trust of international partners directly depend on the stability of leadership and the transparency of the appointment process. When the security bloc undergoes a series of reshuffles, it can signal either a need to renew management approaches or political bargaining within the elites.

Security analysts note: if this is a planned rotation — it is important that it happens under operational logic, and does not become a tool to undermine the effectiveness of services during wartime.

What happens next

The immediate steps to watch are: official comments from the Office of the President, the SBU’s position, a plenary vote in the Verkhovna Rada (if a submission is made), and the reaction of Ukraine’s partners. Rather than speculating, it is important to wait for confirmation and to assess not an isolated change, but its impact on the country’s security system.

The question is clear and simple: will these personnel decisions be aimed at strengthening operational capability and coordination between services, or will they become a source of uncertainty at a critical moment for the country?

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