-Analysis-
KYIV — On November 20, Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin made an unannounced visit to Ukraine.
Austin’s arrival was initially intended as a show of respect to Ukrainian war heroes and a reaffirmation of Washington’s steadfast support for Kyiv. However, this visit inadvertently exacerbated tensions between Ukraine’s top military leader, Valerii Zaluzhny, and its President, Volodymyr Zelensky.
[shortcode-Subscribe-to-Ukraine-daily-box]
“After Austin’s arrival,” one Ukrainian government insider revealed, “it seemed Zelensky was suddenly about to replace Zaluzhny. Eventually, though, their conflicts faded away, and were replaced by sarcastic banter.”
Recent weeks have seen global media outlets reporting on the details of the “conflict” between the Ukrainian president and the Armed Forces head. In response, the President’s Office dismissed all such claims as Russian propaganda.
Amidst the ongoing threat looming over Ukraine, disputes between the country’s top leaders aren’t surprising. Such disagreements can even be seen as part of the carrying out of any war.
The root of tensions between the nation’s president and its ranking head of the Armed Forces, can be traced to a complicated blend of war and politics. Zelensky’s involvement in military planning and command during the war has caused friction as he’s integrated political elements into the traditionally apolitical sphere of the army, inadvertently making Zaluzhny a visible figure in the political arena.
Zelensky’s direct communication channels with military commanders other than Zaluzhny have disrupted the chain of command, leading to a perception of a divided armed forces under “good” commanders favored by Zelensky and “bad” ones under Zaluzhny’s watch. This division has not only demotivated the top commander but also hindered his ability to effectively lead the entire army.
Furthermore, political actions by Zelensky, such as high-profile dismissals within military committees and personnel reshuffles, have created instability within the command structure. Dismissals of individuals linked to Zaluzhny have strained the command vertical, causing tensions.
Cause of tensions
The most significant escalation in tensions occurred after the stalled Ukrainian offensive in the south this past summer. The military’s plan for the offensive didn’t align with the actual complexities of combat, and resulted in unexpected difficulties. The political hype built around this offensive operation, promoted by Zelensky’s team, raised public expectations to unrealistic levels, making it harder to address the military’s real issues.
Zaluzhny’s growing popularity in public opinion polls poses a challenge to Zelensky
While Zaluzhny doesn’t engage in political activities or have a political entity, his growing popularity in public opinion polls poses a challenge to Zelensky’s position. The potential scenario of Zelensky losing in a presidential runoff against Zaluzhny, shown in unpublished poll data, concerns the current administration.
Despite Zelensky’s warning against military involvement in politics, Zaluzhny remains apolitical. His perceived popularity is a testament to Ukrainian society’s desire for a balanced political landscape, even amid a severe conflict, showcasing the resilience of Ukrainian democracy.
Could Zaluzhny resign?
Ukraine is facing a critical need for fresh supplies of weapons and ammunition, necessitating prior coordination with international partners and strategic planning within the General Staff. The absence of a clear strategic plan outlining the needs of the Armed Forces has stirred dissatisfaction among political leaders, prompting criticism and calls for the military leadership to step down.
Ukrainian parliament member Davyd Arahamia expressed frustration over the absence of a war plan outlining the required resources and strategy: “We have been waiting for a war plan from the committee for a long time,” he said. “The General Staff has to draw up a plan: I want to fight like this next year, I need so many people, I need so much money. And no one has this plan.”
Deeper strategy differences
However, the issue isn’t solely the absence of a plan but rather the dissatisfaction with the current strategy aimed at reclaiming Ukraine’s 1991 borders. The General Staff’s estimates indicate a staggering need for 0-400 billion worth of forces and resources to fulfill the president’s goal of liberating the entire territory.
The Pentagon was taken aback by the Ukrainian colleagues’ candor regarding internal tensions.
During Austin’s visit to Kyiv, the Ukrainian General Staff discussed the country’s strategic needs, revealing an alarming demand for 17 million projectiles.
“Austin […] was surprised, to put it mildly,” a senior Defense Forces official speaking off the record, “It’s just not possible to put together so much ammunition.”
Moreover, Pentagon representatives were taken aback by the Ukrainian colleagues’ candor regarding internal tensions. They recounted Zaluzhny’s complaints about “obstacles,” implying internal friction within the military hierarchy. This openness in discussions could have a tangible impact, including Zaluzhny’s resignation becoming a genuine reality, considering President Zelensky’s known emotional responses to such matters.
This development raises concerns about Zaluzhny’s replacement. Zelensky currently seems to have only one apparent option: Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander of the ground forces who has led successful operations like defending Kyiv, the battle for Kharkiv, and a remarkable counteroffensive in the Kharkiv region.
Still, Syrskyi faces his own hurdles, including lack of media savvy and a reputation as a commander unwilling to accept losses within the army.
Moreover, promoting Syrskyi might not prevent the emergence of Zaluzhny as a new influential figure in Ukrainian politics following his resignation. Indeed, sources close to Zelensky indicate a reticence to a Zaluzhny resignation at this time.
Zelensky’s call
Irrespective of the possibilities of replacing Zaluzhny, the authority to make such a critical decision lies with President Zelensky, who appointed him to the position. Before making such a pivotal choice, the head of state needs to contemplate whether changing personnel would address the fundamental cause behind the recent tensions with the Head of the Armed Forces.
Zelensky opposes the idea that the war is at a “dead end”
The focal point, ultimately, revolves around the fundamental strategy for continuing the war. In a column for The Economist, Zaluzhny argued that Ukraine, given the current circumstances, lacks the resources for an outright victory. The foremost requirement is to elevate the army’s recruitment, training, and equipment systems to a higher standard and to seek advanced technological support from international partners. These aspects, in various ways, demand a strategic pause to achieve a qualitative advancement.
Zelensky opposes the idea that the war is at a “dead end” or the prospect of halting the war. His rationale pivots on the idea that a pause could lead to stagnation, diminishing partner interest, and reduced assistance. According to this line of thinking, initiating a pause now might risk getting stuck without an easy way out.
Would Zaluzhny’s resignation resolve this strategic disagreement? Not likely. Rather, it may help the enemy by breaking down all sense of unity between the country’s top two leaders, a dispute that could spread out throughout the whole of Ukrainian society.
