The Ukrainian government had informed the White House about Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to dismiss Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Washington Post reported on 2 February with reference to two sources.
Source: European Pravda with reference to The Washington Post
Details: WP stated that the White House officials had not supported this decision but did not object either, recognizing this step as “the president’s sovereign choice”.
Quote: “The early warning also provided the White House an opportunity to urge Zelensky to reconsider the pivotal decision — even though it decided against doing so.”
The Washington Post adds with reference to people familiar with Zelenskyy’s thinking that he may postpone the decision about the dismissal of Zaluzhnyi indefinitely, though “that appeared unlikely”.
I’m sure there are reasons behind this, but it definitely seems questionable from a morale and PR perspective since I’m pretty sure Zaluzhnyi is super popular (unless that was the problem…? Which I doubt tbh).
If you believe Ryan Evans from War on the Rocks quoting confidential sources, a rivalry has developed between Zelensky and Zaluzhny. Apparently, Zelensky fears that Zaluzhniy may challenge him for the presidency. Also, military analysts think that some of Ukraine’s poor military decisions have come from Zelensky, not Zaluzhny, which is bound to create some tension.
Starts at about 17:45: https://open.spotify.com/episode/12e2WYSgm9smWYgSZN1UwT?si=0YBQ32UgS6W2776dXggN9Q
An overly popular general who takes all the credit for victory and blames all the losses on those pesky politicians, you say?
Can’t imagine why he’d get the boot from a military still struggling with corruption.
Conjecture aside, does Commander in Chief mean the same thing to the Ukrainian military that it means to the American?
Seems like a bad idea to not have your chief executive be able to give direct orders, but maybe I’m just not understanding their idea of the chain of command.
It could be the overly popular and ambitious general scenario, or it could be the scenario of the meddling politician who is incompetent in military matters causing major losses of men and materiel. History has examples of both.
Unfortunately, the lack of progress in the war naturally leads to internal frustration and conflict. The West could certainly help if we would stop using Ukraine military aid as a political football.
The main divergence between the two is that Zelensky is more optimistic about the war while Zaluzhnyi is more pessimistic. There’s also been some chatter that Zaluzhnyi could make a run at the presidency in the future so it could be a factor. This article covers most of it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/31/valerii-zaluzhnyi-ukraine-general-president-volodymyr-zelenskiy-rift
This has been brewing since late last year. It seems like Zelensky feels like Zaluzhnyi has been interfering in the political side of the war, and Zaluszhnyi feels like he’s just been representing the situation as the military sees it.
Yeah this seems odd, he was a rockstar last year. Maybe the current stalemate is the cause.
Bad move, politically motivated
It’s a political office, so, yeah?
The question of whether it’s justified will never be apparent to people outside the inner circles, if even then.
Good dismissal or bad dismissal.
Probably bad. There’s no reports I’ve heard the guy isn’t good at his job. It seems to be a political decision, maybe partly motivated by unrealistic ideas Zelensky has about where the conflict is now, which he’s publicly contradicted.
