Russian state media and pro-Kremlin Telegram channels failed to turn Ukrainian public opinion against the sacked former Defence Minister Mykhailo Fedorov before his dismissal, according to an analysis of almost 7,000 publications that tracked the competing narratives surrounding his removal.

The study by PoshukAI, a Ukrainian artificial intelligence-based media-monitoring service, examined 6,947 publications from 1,340 sources over nine days, identifying 18 separate narratives. The service monitors material appearing on Telegram, TikTok, Threads and the wider web. Its methodology and classifications have not been independently audited.

The findings suggest that attempts to blame Fedorov for abuses by Ukraine’s Territorial Recruitment Centres, or TCKs, initially dominated the information space but quickly lost momentum.

On July 9, a day after about 200 people clashed with recruitment officers and police in Lviv and overturned a military vehicle, the narrative that “Fedorov is to blame for the lawlessness of the TCK” accounted for 58.2% of the discussion monitored by PoshukAI. Ukrainian authorities opened criminal investigations into the violence and the alleged use of force by recruitment personnel.

The study said MPs from President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s Servant of the People party helped launch the criticism. Danylo Hetmantsev began discussing the issue at 07:14, followed by Roman Kaptielov at 11:28. Zelenskiy entered the debate at 18:23, about 11 hours after the first intervention.

But by July 13, the TCK narrative had fallen to just 2.5% of monitored coverage. “It simply didn’t take root,” the researchers concluded. By the time Fedorov was dismissed on July 15, public discussion had moved to a different explanation: his increasingly acrimonious dispute with General Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

Fedorov, a 35-year-old former digital transformation minister, left the defence ministry after only six months. He had developed a reputation as a technological moderniser, expanding Ukraine’s use of drones and data-driven warfare while attempting to overhaul military procurement. Zelenskiy acknowledged that Fedorov and Syrskyi had been unable to work together effectively.

The second-largest hostile narrative described Fedorov as “An incompetent PR minister without military experience.” It peaked on July 14 and argued that he lacked the experience to plan military operations and had merely repackaged projects developed by others.

One message repeated across the network said: “Part of the generals believes that the minister lacks military experience, and his initiatives are called repackaging of existing projects.”

PoshukAI described this as the most “Russian” of the narratives that also circulated inside Ukraine. Russian-language Telegram channels generated 57% of the material, although the use of Russian does not by itself establish that a source was controlled from Russia.

Another line of attack claimed that “Fedorov himself is corrupt.” According to the study, Russian-language outlets and what it described as tabloid-style non-governmental organisations accounted for 47% of publications carrying that accusation.

The clearest Russian disinformation narrative was that “Fedorov is a Western project, and the protests are staged.” Variations included the claim that a “Soros crew is gathering a Maidan”, that Fedorov was being promoted by oligarch Viktor Pinchuk’s financial-industrial group and that demonstrators had been paid to take part.

Russian sources produced 94% of publications advancing that theory, compared with 6% from Ukrainian sources. The principal carriers included Life.ru, Vesti.ru and Komsomolskaya Pravda, according to the analysis.

PoshukAI said Russian state media displayed exceptional hostility towards Fedorov. “When Moscow works against a specific defence minister with such intensity — this is probably the best indicator of his effectiveness,” the analysis said.

That assessment was echoed indirectly by some pro-Kremlin commentators celebrating his departure. One Russian military blogger described Fedorov as “too smart and effective for an enemy”, while other commentators portrayed his public disagreement with Zelenskiy as a political rebellion.

The dismissal nevertheless triggered rare wartime demonstrations. More than 1,000 people gathered outside the presidential office in Kyiv on July 16, while protests were held in several other cities. Demonstrations continued in the capital for at least three consecutive days, with participants demanding Fedorov’s reinstatement and Syrskyi’s dismissal.

The protests substantially changed the balance of online discussion. The narrative “Accusations against Fedorov because of the TCK” fell from 8.8% to 2.8%, while calls to retain him rose from 14% to 27.6%.

At the same time, the narrative that “responsibility is placed on Syrskyi” surged from 2.4% to 18.2%.

“The protest did not lift the accusations. It redirected them to a different address,” the study said.

The volume of coverage accelerated as the dispute unfolded. On the penultimate day of monitoring, PoshukAI recorded 1,939 publications. Before the following day had ended, the total had already reached 3,246. Fedorov’s farewell message generated 566 follow-up publications across 412 sources, making it the most widely reproduced single message in the dataset.

Overall, 48.4% of the publications were classified as supportive of Fedorov, compared with 13.9% that were hostile and 37.6% that were neutral.

The figures suggest that the Kremlin-linked media ecosystem succeeded in injecting hostile narratives into the debate but failed to make them dominant. Instead, the public backlash transformed Fedorov’s dismissal from an internal government reshuffle into a broader argument over military leadership, technological reform and responsibility for Ukraine’s mobilisation crisis.