Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Rustem Umerov has been appointed head of Ukraine’s Foreign Intelligence Service. And this is precisely the personnel decision after which there are far more questions than answers.
We are told that in his new position Umerov will coordinate the conclusion of drone deals with partners. He will also remain part of the Ukrainian delegation in negotiations with the United States. Ukraine already has relevant agreements with nine countries, and talks are ongoing with fifteen more.
All of this is, of course, important. But there is one simple question: what direct relevance does this have to leading the Foreign Intelligence Service? Read more in an exclusive column for 24 Channel.
They found Umerov a position — but did they find a leader for the FIS
The Foreign Intelligence Service is not a negotiating platform or an entity for concluding drone deals. It collects information outside Ukraine that is critical to national security.
It is a professional intelligence agency with its own hierarchy, methods of operation, and specialists.
In recent years the FIS gradually began to shed its status as a place for political employment. The teams of Oleg Ivashchenko and Oleg Luhovskyi built up its capabilities, including in technical intelligence. Positive changes were noticed not only in Ukraine but also by our international partners.
And precisely at this moment the service is led by a person without experience in intelligence work.
We are told that Umerov needed a specific position to continue international negotiations. But that is a very strange explanation.
A person can be a special representative of the president. They can work in the President’s Office. They can have a separate mandate for negotiations with partners. After all, the world knows many examples where people without a formal state position take part in the most important negotiations if they have the head of state’s trust.
It is not necessary to head an intelligence service for that.
So it seems we were not looking for the best leader for the FIS. We were looking for a position for a specific person.
Old surnames in new positions
Perhaps this can be explained by a personnel shortage. In Ukraine there really are not many people whom the president trusts with the security sector, partner negotiations, and international agreements.
But a personnel shortage does not mean the same people should be endlessly shuffled from one chair to another.
Umerov headed the Ministry of Defense. Then he became secretary of the National Security and Defense Council. Now he has been appointed head of the Foreign Intelligence Service.
Positions change, but the surnames remain the same.
And each time we hear explanations about new tasks, international contacts, important negotiations, and the president’s trust. But we almost never hear explanations of why this person best meets the professional requirements of a particular institution.
Solomiia Bobrovska openly says that Umerov’s work at the Ministry of Defense and NSDC did not demonstrate institutional continuity and systemness.
Roman Kostenko warns that constant personnel rotations in the security bloc are destroying institutional capacity. In his view, the current FIS team should have been allowed to finish what it started, and the service should have been led by a professional with experience in intelligence.
And these remarks are hard to simply dismiss.
Because a professional state institution cannot restart everything from scratch each time with a new leader, their advisors, and their vision.
Questions Umerov has not answered
There is another part of this story.
Rustem Umerov’s name appeared in a case related to Tymur Mindich. It concerned alleged influence on the then defense minister during the purchase of body armor.
Umerov himself denied involvement in a corruption scheme. He confirmed a meeting with Mindich but emphasized that the contract was terminated due to the product’s noncompliance with established requirements.
There is no basis to assert that Umerov is guilty. Serhii Rakhmanin, for example, said he does not believe Umerov was involved in that scheme.
But political questions nonetheless remain.
When members of the Verkhovna Rada asked for explanations, Umerov refused to report to parliament. He said he had already provided all answers to law enforcement agencies.
Formally that may be sufficient for an investigation. But it is not enough for public trust.
Especially when afterward the person does not leave public administration but receives another extremely important position.
There were also reports about Umerov’s family owning property in the United States. His press service denied these claims and announced preparation of a lawsuit.
And again: we have unproven allegations, not dispelled doubts.
The president should explain his decision
Umerov may be a strong negotiator. He may have good connections in the United States and Middle Eastern countries. He may be useful for concluding drone deals.
But that alone is not enough to automatically consider him the best candidate for the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service.
Maybe the president has arguments we do not know. Maybe a much more complex plan underlies this appointment.
But President Volodymyr Zelensky has not explained this decision to the public.
We have not heard which specific professional qualities of Umerov are needed by the FIS. We have not heard how the institutional continuity of the service will be preserved. We do not know whether the current professional team will remain and who will actually make decisions — career intelligence officers or new advisers who will come with the leader.
Instead, we heard that Umerov will continue to work on drone deals and negotiations.
But the Foreign Intelligence Service does not exist to provide a negotiator with a status position.
And if the head of the FIS is appointed primarily to carry out political and diplomatic assignments, the state should honestly explain who, in that case, will run the intelligence work itself.
Because during wartime personnel decisions in the security sector cannot be explained merely by the president being comfortable working, traveling on business, or negotiating with someone.
This must not be about the convenience of a particular person.
This must be about the capacity of the state.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Посада для Умерова чи керівник для розвідки: що не так із новим призначенням Зеленського". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Channel 24.
