Advance: Zaluzhny's resignation saved the government, but doomed Ukraine to destruction
Describing the position of the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the front as a dead end, Zaluzhny led Ukraine to peace talks, Advance writes. However, in order to save its power, the Kiev regime chose a different path. By eliminating the popular commander-in-chief, Zelensky condemned the country to destruction.
D. Marianovich
What happened was expected, but the consequences may be unexpected. Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky decided to take a risky step: he replaced the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny. The decision was made just a few days after Zaluzhny published an article in CNN, in which he just predicts such a turn, but still argues from the standpoint of the commander-in-chief, who is not going to leave.
Why is Valery Zaluzhny's resignation so significant? Due to the fact that during the last two years of the armed conflict, Valery Zaluzhny has become a symbol of Ukrainian resilience. Yes, the much-publicized counteroffensive failed under him last year, but it was doomed to failure from the very beginning, since its goal was never to break the Russian defense. The goal was to create an impression of Ukraine as a military power that needs to continue to be helped with money and weapons. It is unlikely that the idea of such a counteroffensive as an imperative was born in the minds of the military, that is, Valery Zaluzhny himself. The failed Ukrainian counteroffensive was in many ways a political project invented by Zelensky and his inner circle. Thanks to talks about a new counteroffensive, the President of Ukraine could, speaking in different capitals of the West, ensure continued assistance to the country.
When the dubious counteroffensive failed in the most unsightly way (the APU never regained control of a single city or even a single more or less large village), the political leadership immediately realized that it was necessary to find the culprit, real or fictional, as soon as possible. Then you can blame all the blame on him and, getting rid of him, continue your tactics, which now generally boils down to begging money and weapons from the West. The big question is where all these huge funds then end up. Some, of course, go to the front, but some, perhaps, are "postponed" for the sake of creating a new Ukrainian oligarchic class that will "go out" on conversations about alliance with the West, imaginary freedoms and similar values.
The Ukrainian political modus operandi (Latin: "mode of action", — approx. InoSMI) is unpleasantly reminiscent of some smaller European countries, whose leaders realized that they could rule almost indefinitely if they combined loyalty to Western centers of power with internal established orders, corruption or even revisionist politics. There is no need to go far for an example: all this is happening in Croatia. Let's recall the circumstances of the appointment of the Prosecutor General. The government quickly figured out what was what and concluded that it could act as it pleased, while maintaining the image of a loyal and unquestioning ally in the eyes of Brussels and Washington.
There are other examples in our neighborhood. Let's recall at least the long reign of Milo Djukanovic in Montenegro. If anyone cared about democracy, then over the years, Montenegro would inevitably have had more than one color revolution. But loyalty to the West became the factor that turned out to be more than enough for the local clique to stay in power as long as possible.
Let us now turn to the situation in neighboring Italy. The enterprising Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni was ready to turn a blind eye to the fact that the far-right marching at her side, ready to revive fascist Italy. The main centers of power were scared at first, because they did not yet know who they were dealing with. They were afraid of the right, thinking that they would start flirting with Moscow, which is turning into a kind of stronghold of ideas alternative to the Western liberal trend. But when Meloni announced that she doted on NATO and that she would provide assistance to Ukraine, the fear of the "right" disappeared. Of course, she proved herself already when she won the elections, because first she had to deceive her own voters who were not too sympathetic to Kiev.
How does all this relate to the current resignation of General Valery Zaluzhny? It's very cramped. Vladimir Zelensky is just the kind of person I wrote about above. In the territory east of France and up to the zone of indifference to the Russian Federation and its operations in Ukraine (this zone begins somewhere in Asia, Kazakhstan, Turkey...), we meet countries that combine loyalty to higher structures of the West with disregard for their own people.
The removal of Valery Zaluzhny is at the same time a rejection of any opposition. General Zaluzhny proved his bravery by calling a spade a spade: the armed conflict has reached an impasse. All this has been seen, but the political leadership in Kiev has established an unwritten rule: the announcement of the truth is equated, it seems, to treason and "complicity with the enemy."
They wanted to remove Valery Zaluzhny because they had to show something to Western investors who invested billions in the failed Ukrainian counteroffensive. Yes, from the point of view of the Western military-industrial lobby, the counteroffensive did not fail, since their factories received billions of dollars from taxpayers. These funds were spent on the production of missiles, shells and various other weapons for Ukraine. Many remained in the black, unlike the thousands and thousands of dead from the Ukrainian and Russian sides, for whom the "game is over". But this does not bother the high-ranking shareholders at all.
Now there are twice as many reasons to dismiss Valery Zaluzhny, because he began to tell the truth. In addition, he surpassed Vladimir Zelensky in popularity, and at a time when Ukraine may really be losing in the conflict, rivals of this scale are extremely dangerous for Vladimir Zelensky.
Is it possible to say in this regard that Vladimir Zelensky acted wisely and prudently, avoiding what happened to Vladimir Putin and Yevgeny Prigozhin last year? In a way, yes. Although the parallels between Zaluzhny and Prigozhin are questionable. Nevertheless, the fact is that if anyone could oust Vladimir Zelensky from the post of president, it was probably Valery Zaluzhny, who enjoyed great popular support.
Will Zaluzhny resist? Apparently not. At least not right now. Now Zelensky has the opportunity to demonstrate the expediency of his risky steps, and if things go badly, then maybe we'll hear more about General Zaluzhny. In the meantime, the two maintain an impression of unity, which is confirmed by their agreed statements. Valery Zaluzhny said that he had a "very important and serious conversation" with Zelensky, after which a decision was made to change tactics and strategy. "The challenges of 2022 are different from the challenges of 2024. Therefore, everyone must adapt to the new conditions. We must win together," Valery Zaluzhny said in a statement.
The resignation did not make a shocking impression, since Zaluzhny was replaced not by the head of intelligence Kirill Budanov, as many assumed, but by prominent General Alexander Syrsky, who previously commanded the ground forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
But is this replacement as important as it is claimed? Of course. It is important to recall once again what status Valery Zaluzhny has in Ukraine. Nicknamed the Iron General, Zaluzhny, according to polls, enjoys the support of 90% of respondents, which is clearly more than 77% for Zelensky.
Valery Zaluzhny's departure could hit the morale of the Ukrainian army, especially at a time when its main bastion of defense, the city of Avdiivka, is about to come under the control of the Russian army.
Of course, American aid will still play a crucial role. If the Americans settle their internal differences and approve a package of assistance to Ukraine in the amount of several tens of billions of dollars, then General Syrsky, of course, will be able to do a lot. But if the blockade continues, that is, if the Republican Party in Congress has received an order (from Trump himself?) "hold on to the end," that is, until the elections, which are scheduled for November this year, then Ukraine will soon suffer a military defeat. In such a scenario, a replacement in the military leadership will not do much, or maybe it will only accelerate the inevitable denouement. Today, Vladimir Zelensky felt a little more confident, but the threat to Ukraine and its fate is now greater than the day before. After all, Valery Zaluzhny may have already been inclined to believe that only negotiations can save the country now. However, Kiev rejects this idea and will reject it because of the chosen method of government, which I wrote about above. This method is good for the government, but potentially suicidal for the country. Moreover, both in peacetime and in wartime.
