Putin Silences One of His Few Critics Dmitry Kozak Resigns

On September 18, 2025, the Kremlin confirmed that Dmitry Nikolayevich Kozak, a longtime associate of Vladimir Putin and a deputy head of the Presidential Administration, has resigned “at his own request” and was relieved of his duties by a presidential decree. While the official statement offered no further detail, multiple reports indicate that Kozak’s departure marks the removal of one of the very few senior figures who had quietly expressed opposition — or at least caution — toward Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

This development is more than just a change in personnel. It’s a signal: dissent inside Russia’s elite is being narrowed, alternatives to the current war-strategy are being edged out, and the power structure around Putin is becoming ever more consolidated. Here’s a closer look at what Kozak’s career shows, what his resignation suggests, and what may follow.

Who is Dmitry Kozak?

Dmitry Kozak has been a fixture of the Russian political elite for decades. Born in 1958 in Ukraine’s Kirovohrad region, he entered public life during the post-Soviet transformations and gradually rose through the ranks.  He worked with Putin in St. Petersburg in the 1990s, held posts such as Deputy Prime Minister (2008-2020), Minister for Regional Development, presidential envoy to federal districts, and since 2020, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration. 

Kozak’s reputation is that of a technocrat: someone who is less ideologue, more manager; someone who can think through logistics, development, regional administration, and who has occasionally pushed for reform, even when such pushes run into political headwinds. But Kozak was also known for being one of the rare insiders who, at least in certain moments, expressed scepticism about the war in Ukraine, or proposed more restrained or negotiated approaches. 

Kozak’s Oppositional Moments

Kozak’s dissent was never loud or public in broad terms; it was subtle, internal, and often reported by outlets based on sources. Some of the moments most often cited:

• February 2022, Security Council meeting: Kozak was reportedly the only senior official at a February Security Council meeting who opposed the idea of launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

• Early-war mediation proposals: In the early stages of the conflict, Kozak is said to have attempted to broker a deal with Ukraine that would have prevented its NATO membership in return for security guarantees; Putin is said to have rejected this. 

• Warnings about consequences: He reportedly warned about the economic, political, and military costs of the war. He also urged the Kremlin to reduce the influence of Russia’s security services and improve judicial independence. 

But even during these moments, Kozak’s dissent was constrained. He did not break publicly with Putin; he never launched an open criticism of the war that would be visible to the population at large. His suggestions appear to have been ignored, overtaken, or quietly sidelined. Over time, many of his responsibilities tied to Ukraine, foreign regions, and interregional cooperation were transferred to more hardline figures, especially Sergei Kiriyenko. 

The Resignation: What We Know

From the available sources, the following facts have been established (or reliably reported) about Kozak’s resignation:

• A presidential decree relieved him of his duties as deputy head of the Presidential Administration. 

• The Kremlin claims that Kozak resigned at his own request. 

• Some Russian media reported that Kozak submitted a resignation letter sometime around September 13-14, 2025, and was reportedly considering moving into business. 

• There was no explanation given in the decree about the reasons or his future position. 

Why This Matters: Implications and Signals

1. Erosion of Internal Dissent

Kozak’s exit removes one of the few internal voices who had advocated for negotiation or caution regarding Ukraine. His resignation indicates that even limited dissent is no longer tolerated (or at least, not retained). Analysts see it as a signal that the Kremlin is marshaling unity around the war, and that alternative perspectives are being squeezed. 

2. Consolidation of Hardline Influence

With Kozak effectively out of the way, figures aligned fully with the current war-strategy — such as Kiriyenko — gain greater influence. Kiriyenko has already assumed many of the portfolios formerly held by Kozak (Ukraine policy, regional foreign affairs, etc.) over recent years.  This suggests that the Kremlin is centralizing decision-making among those uncompromising on the war.

3. Message to Others

Kozak’s removal serves as a warning. Even among those close to the president and with long histories of loyalty, dissent has consequences. It likely signals to others inside the system that pushing for peace or reforms behind closed doors carries risk: you may be demoted, sidelined, or asked to resign. The “own request” framing helps preserve a veneer of voluntary exit, but the pressure is still present. 

4. Domestic and International Repercussions

Domestically, this reinforces the hardline narrative: that Russia must stay the course in Ukraine, and that any talk of peace is defeatism or betrayal. For foreign observers and adversaries, Kozak’s exit is a signal that Russian leadership is unlikely to deviate from escalation or maximalist objectives in the near term. It underlines that war fatigue or internal criticism is being stamped out. It may also reduce prospects of back-channel negotiations, since one of the people seen as more moderate or pragmatic is no longer in influence. 

Possible Alternatives or Doubts

While much of the reporting supports the interpretation that Kozak was sidelined for his opposition (or at least caution) over the war, it’s worth considering caveats and alternative readings:

• Voluntary exit narrative: The Kremlin emphasizes that Kozak resigned “at his own request.” This can mean many things in the context of Russian power politics — from genuine fatigue or desire to pivot to business, to implicit coercion or recognizing his reduced influence. 

• Technocrat limitations: Some analysts believe Kozak’s role was always limited, and that his dissent was more about policy advisory and warning rather than strong opposition. In other words, while he disagreed with some things, he may not have posed a serious challenge in terms of ideology or mobilisation. Thus, his removal may not drastically change the policy direction, which was already hardlining over the past years. 

• Strategic repositioning: It’s possible Kozak was offered or will accept some less public or less powerful role, or join the private sector. Some reports suggest he is exploring business options.

• Symbolic rather than operational change: Some changes in administration are more symbolic — maybe the architectures of these departments had already shifted. Kozak’s departure might simply formalize de facto changes already occurring behind the scenes. 

What It Reveals About Power Under Putin

From Kozak’s resignation and how the situation has unfolded, we can draw broader lessons about the structure of power in contemporary Russia:

A. Dissent Must Stay Quiet

Kozak’s case illustrates that even within the inner circles, criticism (especially about Ukraine war policy) must remain low-key. Public criticism is almost unthinkable; even private dissent is risky. Those who do dissent are gradually marginalized.

B. Loyalty Over Competence (Though Competence Still Matters)

Kozak was a competent, experienced technocrat. But over time his value was eclipsed by loyalty to the current dominant narrative (war, confrontation, maximalist objectives). Russia seems to be privileging alignment with the war policy over managerial or technical competence, at least in sensitive portfolios. The rise of Kiriyenko is instructive in that respect. 

C. Centralisation and Tightening Control

Power is becoming more centralized around Putin and a narrowing group of trusted hardliners. Institutions that once may have had slightly more flexible mandates (negotiation, foreign policy oversight, or regional development) are now reshaped to reinforce the war-effort and suppress alternatives. Departments Kozak headed have been abolished or their duties transferred. 

D. Politics of Image and Messaging

Kozak’s removal is as much about the message it sends (internally and externally) as about policy change. Russia’s image to its own elite, to the public, and to the world – must show unity, resolve, no visible cracks. Any internal debate must be either completely suppressed or exist in shadows.

What Happens Next — Possible Scenarios

Looking forward, Kozak’s resignation might lead to or reflect several trajectories:

1. Hardline War Continuation: With moderates like Kozak gone, the war strategy likely continues with fewer internal obstacles. The hardliners’ influence (Kiriyenko et al.) may grow, meaning escalation or at least firmness in posture is more likely.

2. Fewer Soft Negotiation Channels: Any chances of peace negotiations via internal back-channels or voices advocating restraint are likely to diminish. Watch for whether Russia allows or fosters external mediation (again, likely less if signals from the leadership are united against it).

3. Increased Repression of Internal Criticism: Other officials who harbor doubts may feel more constrained. The removal of Kozak may instill caution in those considering expressing dissent. Purges, transfers, demotions may follow more quietly.

4. Policy Drift Toward Maximalism: Without internal checks, war aims may become more ambitious, or resources may be committed even in suboptimal ways as the feedback loops of dissent and feasibility are reduced.

5. International Reactions: Foreign governments observing Russia will interpret this move as proof that the Kremlin has no intention of moderating its war aims. This may harden sanctions, diplomatic pressure, or war posture of Ukraine’s allies.

6. Kozak’s Personal Future: Kozak may shift to private sector, engage in business, or retire from public life. Alternatively, if internal dynamics shift (e.g. after elections, or if war becomes more costly), he might be re-introduced in another role or become part of reformist or pragmatic factions, though this seems less likely under current trends. 

How This Fits Into Broader Trends

Kozak’s departure is not isolated; it fits into several broader patterns in Putin’s Russia:

• Marginalization of Moderates: Over the past few years, figures who advocated for negotiation or caution have been gradually reduced in influence. Either their portfolios have been shifted, or they have become less visible. Kozak’s case is a more explicit marker of that. 

• Importance of War for Domestic Power Structure: The war is more than an external conflict; it has become central to the identity of the regime, and a vehicle for internal political organization, control, and loyalty. Promoting war hardliners reinforces internal cohesion under a particular worldview.

• Use of Resignations as Political Tool: Framing exits as “at own request” or “voluntary resignation” is a familiar mechanic in Russian elite politics. It allows for removal without open conflict; it obfuscates internal pressure; it allows both sides (Kremlin and the person removed) some face. Kozak’s case follows this pattern. 

• Risk Management within the Kremlin: The Kremlin seems to manage dissent not by public showdowns but by removing responsibilities, reassigning duties, isolating voices, until stepping aside becomes the logical outcome.

Conclusion

Dmitry Kozak’s resignation is a notable event not because he was a vocal public opponent (he was not), but because he was one of the very few inside the Kremlin who appeared willing to raise doubts about the direction of Russia’s war in Ukraine. His exit removes one of the safety valves of internal criticism and consolidates the dominance of hardliners.

The official framing of “resignation at his own request” masks what many observers see as pressure, exclusion, and the near-certainty that policy dissent will not be tolerated. For Russia’s domestic politics, it means fewer internal checks; internationally, it signals a reduced likelihood of war de-escalation.

What once may have been small cracks in the Kremlin’s unity are being sealed shut. As Putin enters another period of his rule, the message is clear: the path he has chosen in Ukraine is non-negotiable, and those who propose otherwise will be squeezed out.