Andriy Kovalenko is stepping down as head of the Center for Countering Disinformation, a body operating under Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accepted his resignation. Kovalenko announced the decision himself on Telegram, writing that he will continue contributing to work in the national security sphere. He also said his personal communication channels, which have become widely followed during the war, are expected to become more active. The announcement is direct and matter-of-fact, consistent with the style Kovalenko has used throughout his tenure. It does not give a reason for the departure, but it makes clear that he is not leaving the broader fight against threats to Ukraine. The resignation comes as Ukraine continues to face not only conventional military aggression but also a sustained campaign of disinformation aimed at influencing public opinion both inside and outside the country. The Center for Countering Disinformation was established to help coordinate the state’s response to such threats, and Kovalenko has been its public face since the center began operating. During his time at the helm, the center developed a reputation for rapid monitoring of media, rapid response to fake narratives, and close cooperation with civil society and international partners. His departure therefore represents a significant change in the way Ukraine communicates about information security. At the same time, Kovalenko’s emphasis on continuing to work in national security suggests that the change is not a retirement or a demotion, but perhaps a reassignment or a new stage in his career. Observers in Kyiv will be watching closely for further announcements about his next role and about the future leadership of the center. The process of naming a successor has not been publicly announced, and it is unclear whether the center’s leadership transition will affect its ongoing operations. For now, Kovalenko’s own public statements indicate that he intends to remain an active and influential voice in Ukraine’s information defense community.
In his announcement, Kovalenko did not mention a replacement or offer a specific timeline for his departure beyond saying that the president had accepted his resignation. He wrote that he would continue his work in national security and would continue running his personal pages, noting that those pages are expected to become more active. This phrase is significant because Kovalenko’s personal Telegram channel, followed by a large number of Ukrainian media consumers, has become an important source of updates on information threats, including warnings about Russian propaganda campaigns, manipulation attempts, and coordinated amplification tactics. By signaling that he will be even more active there, Kovalenko may be indicating that he will continue to inform the public independently even if he no longer holds a formal coordinating role. The use of the word “personal” might also be a deliberate clarification, suggesting that his next official duties will not include running public communication channels in the same way. Alternatively, it could mean that he will operate in a more analytical or strategic capacity where public commentary is less directly tied to the state structure. The announcement did not say whether Kovalenko would retain any formal advisory role within the National Security and Defense Council or whether he would join a different institution. It also did not provide details on the center’s next steps. The lack of information has generated speculation in Ukrainian media, with some commentators suggesting that the change could be linked to broader personnel transformations in the government’s information policy apparatus. Others have suggested that Kovalenko may be positioning himself for a more independent platform, given the importance of communicating directly with the public in wartime. Whatever the reason, his departure marks the end of an era for the Center for Countering Disinformation, an institution that was created in 2021 as part of Ukraine’s effort to strengthen its defenses against hybrid threats. The center was intended to be a small but agile body, tasked with exposing disinformation and coordinating the work of state bodies, media regulators, and civil society. Under wartime conditions, that mission intensified dramatically. Kovalenko’s role expanded beyond administrative oversight into a form of public service journalism and national security communication. His daily updates frequently reached thousands of people, and his voice became familiar to many Ukrainians who sought reliable guidance in an environment flooded with manipulated content.
The Center for Countering Disinformation was created under the National Security and Defense Council in response to the growing threat of foreign influence campaigns. Its mandate includes monitoring the information space, identifying fakes and distortions, analyzing disinformation trends, and advising government bodies on how to respond. In practice, the center has functioned as a mix between a watchdog, a research unit, and a rapid-response communications mechanism. It has worked with state institutions to debunk false claims about the war, about Ukraine’s leadership, about Western partners, and about the conduct of military operations. It has also played a role in supporting Ukraine’s broader strategic communications, helping to ensure that official narratives remain credible and consistent. The center has operated alongside other Ukrainian institutions, including the Security Service of Ukraine, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and various media literacy initiatives. But because it sits directly under the National Security and Defense Council, it has had a high-level perspective on how the government understands and responds to information threats. This institutional design gave the center a certain authority and flexibility, allowing it to move quickly when false narratives began circulating. Kovalenko’s leadership was marked by a strong emphasis on speed: false claims would often be confronted within minutes or hours, using evidence-based analysis and clear explanations. He also used his platform to draw attention to Russian troll campaigns, to identify fake videos and images, to correct manipulated translations, and to warn Ukrainian audiences about coordinated attempts to sow panic. The center also tracked narratives emerging from foreign sources, including Western media, that were seen as reproducing Russian talking points. At times, its work drew criticism from those who argued that some assessments were too broad or that the designation of certain viewpoints as disinformation risked becoming overly expansive. Supporters, however, saw the center as a necessary defense against an adversary that has invested heavily in information warfare. The body’s work has also extended beyond the online space, with efforts to educate the public, support journalists, and promote media literacy. All of this occurred against the backdrop of a full-scale invasion, in which information operations have been an integral part of Russia’s strategy. Ukrainian officials have repeatedly warned that Moscow uses disinformation to reduce international military aid, to destabilize Ukrainian society, and to justify aggression both domestically and abroad. The center has been a key element in resisting that pressure.
Andriy Kovalenko himself has the background of a journalist and communications specialist rather than a career bureaucrat. This profile is important because it shaped how he approached the role: he often communicated in a direct, accessible style, using clear language and concrete examples rather than abstract officialese. His personal pages became extensions of the center’s work, allowing him to maintain a high level of public visibility and engagement. He was known for being unafraid to confront Russian propaganda head-on, and he frequently called out foreign commentators, outlets, and political figures who, in his view, aided the Kremlin’s narratives. At the same time, he used the platform to give Ukrainians a sense of control over the chaotic information environment, offering explanations, clarifications, and warnings in a reassuringly steady tone. During his tenure, Kovalenko also dealt with the challenges of social media platforms, which have struggled to police disinformation in multiple languages. The center’s work intersected with platform policy, media regulation, and the broader international debate on free expression and censorship. Kovalenko’s comments often reflected a pragmatic view: in wartime, countering disinformation is a security necessity, not an academic exercise. His official statements and interviews emphasized the real-world consequences of disinformation, from undermining mobilization to influencing Western elections. He also highlighted the role of anonymous channels, bot networks, and coordinated comment sections in spreading Russian narratives. His departure from the center does not mean that his expertise will be lost, since he has said that he will continue to play a role in national security. But the transition raises questions about the future style and focus of the center. A new head may bring a different approach, possibly more institutional and less publicly visible. The center could also continue to function in a way that increasingly relies on collaborative efforts with other agencies, with less emphasis on public-facing commentary. In any case, Kovalenko’s exit will leave a meaningful gap in Ukraine’s information defense landscape, at least in the short term.
The timing of the change is also important. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has been engaged in a constant battle to maintain confidence at home and among allies. Disinformation campaigns have evolved from crude fakes to more sophisticated operations that mix real events and fabricated details. In recent months, narratives have focused on war fatigue, alleged corruption in Ukraine, the supposed futility of military aid, and the destabilization of Ukraine’s relations with key partners. These narratives are often promoted through a combination of social media accounts, state-funded media, incidental amplification by influencers, and even unwitting repetition by mainstream commentators. The Center for Countering Disinformation has been on the front line of identifying and countering these efforts. Its success has not been purely defensive; it has also helped shape a broader understanding of how information operations work and how they can be disrupted. Kovalenko has often stressed that disinformation does not end at Ukraine’s borders. Russian narratives about the war are also aimed at audiences in Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Africa. The center has collaborated with foreign partners, think tanks, and investigative journalists to expose these campaigns. Kovalenko’s public channels have been an important part of that outreach, offering curated analysis in Ukrainian and, at times, messaging that could be picked up by international observers. His decision to emphasize that his personal pages will become more active might be aimed at maintaining that outbound communication. In his announcement, he spoke of continuing to contribute to national security; this could mean that he will remain involved in tracking and debunking hostile narratives, but through informal channels or in an advisory capacity. For a country at war, the distinction between official and personal communication can be subtle. Many Ukrainian officials have built large social media followings and use their platforms to deliver urgent messages. Kovalenko’s case is nevertheless noteworthy because his official role and his personal brand were unusually intertwined. The center’s reputation was tied to his voice, and his voice was tied to his official authority. When he publishes now, his statements will still be read as those of a former official, and his information will still carry weight, but the institutional backing will be less direct. That could give him more latitude, but also less formal support.
The resignation of Andriy Kovalenko therefore marks a transitional moment for Ukrainian information defense. It is not the end of Ukraine’s efforts to counter disinformation, but it is a reminder that institutional arrangements are not permanent and that personnel changes can shape a policy area as much as strategy does. Kovalenko’s next role remains somewhat unclear, but his insistence that he will continue to work in national security suggests that he will not disappear from public life. His personal channels are expected to become more active, which means that his output may shift from official agency announcements to a more independent style of commentary and analysis. Supporters of the center will hope that its work continues under new leadership without losing momentum. Critics may use the change to argue that the center has had mixed results or that a single individual should not be so central to state communications. For his part, Kovalenko has presented the decision as an ordinary transition, not as a rupture. By thanking the president and stressing continuity, he has tried to minimize any impression of discord. In the coming weeks, officials may announce a successor, or they may leave the position temporarily unfilled. Either way, the information war that made the center necessary will continue. Ukraine will still face campaigns of manipulation intended to distort reality and undermine its resistance. The methods and voices may change, but the fundamental threat remains. Kovalenko’s new stage, whatever it involves, is likely to be judged by the same standard: whether it helps protect Ukraine from lies and manipulation. His resignation is a moment for reflection on how much has been done and how much remains to be done in a conflict where information remains a decisive front. The need for reliable, credible, and rapid communication will not diminish. Whether through official positions or personal pages, the work of countering disinformation will go on.