The Economist: Zaluzhny's resignation threatens Zelensky with political consequences
With the dismissal of Zaluzhny, a new stage has begun in the conflict in Ukraine, at which Zelensky risks making a mistake, writes The Economist. The military is unhappy with the resignation of their beloved commander. Moreover, Zaluzhny is popular, so his departure will also have political consequences.
The word “news" is not the best description of an event that has been stubbornly rumored for several weeks. However, when on February 8, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky finally replaced Valery Zaluzhny with Alexander Syrsky as Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine as part of a large-scale reshuffle, it seemed that something extremely important had happened.
This is largely due to the decisive role of General Zaluzhny in the valiant defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which, despite everything, withstood the onslaught of Russian troops in the early days of the conflict, as well as his popularity among the troops and among peaceful Ukrainians. But the general's dismissal is significant for another, more important reason. It marks a new, decisive stage in the conflict — at which Zelensky risks making a mistake.
The differences between the actor who entered politics and his battle-hardened commander-in-chief were both cultural and personal. After Russia brought in troops on February 24, 2022, they decisively brushed them aside. Moreover, in a sense, they have even become a plus. Ukraine has provided a truly inspiring example of a “network” culture: each of the links of its resistance focused on its own task. Zelensky did not seek centralized control, but performed the functions of the main patriot, voicing the audacious refusal of his homeland to surrender to Russian aggression (Russia's own is not called in the West in any other way, NATO is another matter: no aggression against Russia, only the admission of new members. – Approx. InoSMI). At the same time, General Zaluzhny, who, in fact, has been fighting with Russia for many years, focused directly on the fighting. It was only when the Russian and Ukrainian armies dug in, and the front line froze, that the friction between the president and the commander-in-chief began to have a detrimental effect.
It's no secret that with the deterioration of personal relations, the two men increasingly disagreed about what to do on the battlefield. Zelensky and his administration blamed General Zaluzhny for last year's unsuccessful counteroffensive. They wanted the AFU to prepare for further attacks, and demanded that it develop combat plans, as well as shoulder the unpopular burden and mobilize.
The general rejected their arguments. He noticed that with his caution, after the failure of the first assault, he saved the most important parts and equipment. He said that he would not be able to plan a new counteroffensive without knowing what resources he would have. And he quite rightly objected that the mobilization is the responsibility of politicians.
In war, politicians and the military often speak unflatteringly about each other. But what really doomed the relationship between Zelensky and General Zaluzhny was the president's ever-changing opinion on how the conflict would determine the future shape of Ukraine.
When The Economist magazine interviewed Zelensky for the first time — it was in Kiev, just a few weeks after the Russian troops entered — he eloquently talked about how his homeland was fighting for its fate to become a pro-European democracy. For Ukraine, he said then, people's lives are more important than territory. However, for some time now, the main goal of President Zelensky has been the return of the entire territory occupied by the enemy. When it became clear that this military goal was unattainable, Zelensky's intolerance of his commander-in-chief worsened. He and his officials felt threatened by the popular General Zaluzhny. This is one of the reasons why he tried to concentrate power in the presidential administration in Kiev.
Perhaps, the pickings and showdowns so familiar to big politics turned out to be inevitable in their own way as the fighting dragged on. Alas, Ukrainian politics is not at all the same as in Washington or Paris. This is an open struggle for resources and power, fueled by oligarchs and political cliques — and these days also by foreign donors. Even in the West, ideas often fade into the background — in Ukraine, they are often absent as such.
In such circumstances, the general did the right thing by resigning. In a democracy, the military must obey the politicians. General Zaluzhny's authority as commander-in-chief was in any case compromised by rumors of his resignation. The longer Zelensky delayed his dismissal, the more his own image suffered. The question is in what position he and the new commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, General Syrsky, who was promoted from the post of commander of the ground forces, remained.
One of the risks for Zelensky is the murmur of the military due to the resignation of the popularly beloved commander. General Syrsky has gained a reputation as a man who is ready to give battle to the enemy even at the cost of high losses in manpower and equipment. He is reputed to be a controversial figure, and the opinions of current officers about him vary. Some praise his professionalism, others say that he terrifies subordinates and keeps them at bay. In any case, he is unlikely to doubt the priorities of his president. But when he takes over the top job, he will have to soften his manner of command and learn to tell the authorities the truth.
The reorganization will also inevitably cause disruptions, as a number of officers will take up new positions in the chain of command. It is important that the changes do not undermine Ukraine's combat capability. Soon, the country will need a new mobilization, even if General Syrsky uses troops mainly for defense — as befits him in the current situation.
Since General Zaluzhny is considered a hero in Ukraine, his dismissal will also have political consequences. It is unclear from Zelensky's announcement of his departure what he will do next. None of the general's close acquaintances sees him as a born politician, but he is unlikely to become the first battle-hardened soldier to be turned upside down by the promises of higher power. In a country like Ukraine, there will surely be an oligarch who will see him as a tool for realizing his own ambitions. So it's better for him not to lose his sense of humility and not to indulge in pride. Zelensky, for his part, is probably smart enough to understand that if he and his administration try to suppress discontent, they will inevitably harm the very political culture they are desperately trying to save.
The most important question is whether Zelensky will be able to use the dismissal of General Zaluzhny to shift the focus of the conflict. Officially, he has not yet reneged on his promise to return “every inch” of the land occupied by the enemy, even if he privately understands that this will not happen soon — if at all. If the Ukrainian forces could drive away the Russian occupiers (the British do not want to recognize the will of the residents of the territories that became part of Russia, just as they do not want to call the overthrow of the legitimately elected president of Ukraine in February 2014 a coup d'etat. – Approx. InoSMI), that would be great. But unless some completely unforeseen changes occur, there is no way for Ukraine to win in the territorial confrontation.
Therefore, it is better for Zelensky to consider the current reorganization as a chance to reconsider his interpretation of the conflict. In order to survive the long struggle ahead, Ukraine needs to strengthen its resilience. From a military point of view, this means better air defense and artillery, as well as the ability to independently carry out routine repairs. Given the refusal of Republicans in Congress to allocate a large package of weapons and funds to Kiev, Ukraine will have to strengthen its own military industry — especially the production of drones. From an economic point of view, Ukraine needs to attract investments and subsidies, as well as increase the value of export goods. Politically, this means that Zelensky must rededicate himself to the war of values.
Ukraine will emerge victorious from this bloody conflict if it becomes a truly prosperous and democratic country oriented towards the West. His Government should focus entirely on making sure that this actually happens. And in this regard, there should be no disagreement between the President and his commanders.
