The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has dismissed the country’s commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi after a turbulent week in which he also removed his defence minister, Mykhailo Fedorov. The dismissal of the popular defence minister, who is credited by many as the brains behind Ukraine’s successful drone strategy, brought thousands on to the streets in protest.

Despite the clear public pressure to fire Syrskyi, Zelensky has presented his removal as part of an overall restructuring of Ukraine’s armed forces. He has appointed Mykhailo Drapatyi, commander of Ukraine’s joint forces group, to take over as commander-in-chief.

Much analysis of this episode has focused on personalities, presenting the episode as a personal conflict within Zelensky’s team. Some saw the president’s decision to side with the unpopular Soviet-style military leadership of Syrskyi rather than the popular moderniser as illogical. But our research shows that tensions between the civilian defence minister and the military leadership are institutional.

Where such conflicts arise, the war makes it logical for the president to side with the commander-in-chief. Zelensky’s recent sacking of Syrskyi due to public pressure will not alter this dynamic.

Disagreements between civilian and military leadership are normal in any country, democratic or otherwise. There will inevitably be conflicting interests. Democratic civilian control – civilian oversight of the military with a clear chain of responsibility – helps to manage these differences on a day-to-day basis. Nevertheless, war exacerbates normal competing interests........

© The Conversation