Zelensky Topples Zaluzhny: Ukraine’s Crisis in Civil-Military Relations
Welcome to my latest substack!
At the time of this writing, Ukraine has been embroiled in a major civil-military dispute at a critical point in its modern-day history after two years of fighting with Russia in a major war. Locked into this internal crisis were Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the popular Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valeriy Zaluzhny. As of a few hours ago, General Zaluzhny ended his refusal to step down by officially resigning and ending months of bitter infighting in what could have become a long protracted struggle between an elected civilian leader and a popular Ukrainian general.
Signs of dissent appeared in the Ukrainian army this week as Zelensky intensified his pressure on Zaluzhny and fears grew of a potential blowback as Reuters recently reported. What may have accelerated Zaluzhny’s decision to resign is that seveeral days ago the Zelensky government ordered an audit of the actions of the Supreme Command of the Defense Forces for the past two years for the abuse of funds aimed at finding evidence of corruption against General Zaluzhny in an effort to force him to step down. This development strongly indicated that General Zaluzhny was not going to quit.
As many Ukraine experts have watched this drama unfold during the past week, it has appeared that Zaluzhny’s resignation was inevitable. What complicates matters, and remains to be seen is whether Zaluzhny is one step away from becoming a political challenger to Zelensky and whether internal tension between the two erupts into a major political crisis resulting in General Zaluzhny quitting and joining the Ukrainian opposition in what should have been an election year in Ukraine. The one thing to look for in seeing how things evolve is whether the traditional Ukrainian method of solving internal quarrels which would be for the two: Zaluzhny and Zelensky to appear in a selfie posted to social media, indicating that everything is fine. Such a move would soothe tension in the ranks of the Ukrainian army over those who disapprove of Zaluzhny’s ouster.
Background to the Current Crisis
Since he was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in July 2021, friction between General Zaluzhny and President Zelensky has been deepening between the two due to the popularity of the Ukrainian General, fueled by the finger-pointing in Kyiv over the failure of the summer 2023 counter-offensive. Zaluzhny’s successful defense of Kyiv during the February 2022 invasion, the September 2022 Kharkiv counter-offensive, and the recapture of Kherson in early 2023 are primarily attributed to the successful military leadership of General Zaluzhny.
Ukrainian General Zaluzhny has received extensive recognition both domestically and internationally due to the war, second only after Zelensky. In September 2022 General Zaluzhny was featured on the cover of Time magazine, an honor, which is historically unprecedented, if not a milestone, for a senior military leader previously part of the Soviet empire - the likes of which we have not seen since the emergence of Carl Gustaf Mannerheim.
In September 2022 the noted journalist Simon Shuster, wrote an extensive article about Zaluzhny hailing the Ukrainian general’s military accomplishments in halting the February 2022 Russian invasion. Zaluzhny has been quite popular with the Western media and gave an interview to the Economist magazine on November 1, 2023, that assessed the direction of the war and offered what many considered to be a criticism of Zelensky by stating that the war with Russia had reached a stalemate. By using this term many believe General Zaluzhny undermined Zelensky by pinning the failure of the 2023 campaign on the Ukrainian President.
Opinion polls in Ukraine, as recently as last December, rank Zaluzhny much higher in popularity than the Ukrainian President or any other figure inside Ukraine.
According to a poll released by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) on December 20, a vast majority (72%) of Ukrainians indicated they would disapprove of the resignation of Commander-in-Chief Valeriy Zaluzhny, while only 8% believe that there are serious disagreements between him and President Volodymyr Zelensky, The poll also found that Zaluzhny was the most trusted military leader in Ukraine at 92%, followed by the head of Ukrainian military intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov, at 60%. The executive director of KIIS, Anton Hrushetskyi, noted that the results of the poll demonstrated that there is still a relatively high level of trust in the top military and political leaders and that Ukrainians have not paid much attention to rumors about the supposed tension between Zaluzhny and Zelensky, stating that any attempt to remove Zaluzhny from his position would likely create a backlash.
Guns, Men, and Ammunition
Tension resurfaced between the two after the Zelensky government presented a draft law on mobilization to the Ukrainian parliament on December 25th, 2023, which failed to lower the age of mobilization from the age of 27 to 25. President Zelensky had publicly stated that the reason there would be no lowering of the mobilization age was because the military command had invited 450,000-500,000 recruits to be mobilized next year to replenish the army.
Frustrated at the lack of resolve of the civilian government, Zaluzhny held his first-ever press conference on December 26 to voice his concerns over the action taken and singled out the issue of manpower and mobilization to highlight the desperate need for a new influx of manpower to fight the war with Russia. The BBC Ukraine service pointed out that the purpose of the Zaluzhny press conference was to emphasize the extreme gravity of the situation and underscore how the Ukrainian army was experiencing major manpower shortages to fight Putin’s war of attrition.
Without mentioning Zelensky by name, General Zaluzhny used the press conference to criticize the civilian leadership by stating that the General Staff "did not make any request for any figures." He noted that: “the army forms its needs, taking into account the current shortfall, the formation of new military units, and forecasts of losses that may occur in the next year. "We cannot divulge this number because it is a military secret." He added:”We form requests for resources - for military equipment and people. We submit all these proposals to the Ministry of Defense, as a subject of a legislative initiative, which then decides how to ensure this. We need shells, weapons, and people. Everything else is carried out by the authorities, who have the authority," noted Zaluzhny.
With the army, in need of manpower, Zaluzhny interpreted Zelensky’s decision as a bridge too far for the military fighting a war against an enemy with far greater numbers of men and resources. In Zaluzhny’s mind, Ukraine’s civilian leaders avoided making a tough political decision by lowering the mobilization age to provide additional human resources to fight the war. Utilizing his control over the Ukrainian parliament through his Servant of the People’s Party, Zelensky took the more popular route of not reducing the mobilization age from 27 to 25. Instead of reducing the mobilization age to 25, and ordering another round of mobilization (conscription) to tap this age group for manpower, Zelensky’s party took the softer approach of asking Ukrainians to the age of 25 to simply undergo reserve training at a time of their choice rather than report for duty.
One of the key questions raised by Zaluzhny during the press conference was the unresolved question of how Ukrainian units manning the frontlines since February 2022 would be replaced due to combat fatigue and a lack of manpower for troop rotations. Zaluzhny asked: “How and with whom to replace experienced people who will leave the Armed Forces.” Zaluzhny noted that it was the responsibility of the Ukrainian parliament to resolve the issue. His statement underscored one of the core issues causing the friction between Zelensky and Zaluzhny: mobilization vs demobilization. Ukrainian military units have been fighting non-stop for the past 24 months and by avoiding a move to reduce the mobilization age from 27 to 25 Ukrainian units manning the front lines would be forced to serve another 12 months, meaning that their total time of service will now extend to 36 months.
Outraged by what he perceived to be an irresponsible decision taken by the Ukrainian parliament Zaluzhny said: "I clearly understand that our fighters at the front are currently in extremely difficult conditions," adding that: "I hope that in 36 months we will be able to cope with the task of replacing those people.” One outside observer at the BBC Ukraine service noted that Zaluzhny believes everything should be decided by military expediency. In the final analysis, it seems that Zaluzhny believed that legislatively Zelensky was not helping the Army resolve the shortcomings in manpower needed for the war and for all purposes he seems to be right.
Zelensky Ups the Pressure
Since their meeting on January 29th, Zelensky and Zaluzhny have waged a public information campaign against each other that culminated in a decision last week by the Ukrainian President to relay to the foreign media that he plans to remove General Zaluzhny. In their meeting last week, Zaluzhny was offered the option of becoming an ambassador to one of several European countries or replacing the current chairman of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov. Zaluzhny, however, rejected the offer and both sides launched a full-scale information war against the other – ironically in of all places - the American media.
Two days after their meeting CNN reported on January 31st that President Zelensky was preparing to ask General Zaluzhny to step down. The Washington Post followed suit by publishing two articles on the subject of the dismissal; with the first one appearing on February 1st presenting Zaluzhny’s resignation as a fait accompli noting that this was part of a government staffing reset beginning with the announcement of his dismissal.
It was only after this series of articles that Zaluzhny began to fight back; first by chastising Zelensky by publishing a selfie on his Facebook on the evening of February 1st after he was reportedly asked to step down. Zaluzhny posted a picture of himself taken with the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Serhiy Shaptala. Both generals were dressed in identical sweaters with the inscription Army Ukraine, possibly hinting that not only the chief of the General Staff supported him, but that the Ukrainian army was supporting him as well.
On the same day, Zaluzhny published an article on the CNN website that discussed the lessons of the war with Russia, where he outlined what the three main areas of focus for the Ukrainian military should be in 2024. The title of the article: The Design of War Has Changed” was only about the war and limited itself to military recommendations for how to carry on the war. It primarily addressed equipment shortages and avoided any specific criticism of the Ukrainian President. However, the message was interpreted differently by the Ukrainian Presidential administration as an effort to gain visibility in the Western media.
Relations intensified last Sunday. On February 4 Zelensky gave an interview to the Italian TV Channel RAI and went beyond earlier demands calling for Zaluzhny to resign by trying to depict the call for resignation as part of a reshuffling of government ministers. In that interview, Zelensky said he was not only considering replacing the commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine but also other military officers such as Chief of the General Staff General Serhiy Shaptala, a close supporter of General Zaluzhny who appeared with Zaluzhny in the selfie posted on Facebook.
Who Wants to Replace Zaluzhny?
One of the core problems with Zelensky’s pressure campaign is that few ranking military commanders immediately stepped forward to replace the popular Ukrainian general. Several Ukrainian media outlets reported that Zelensky had offered the position to two possible candidates - the head of Ukrainian military intelligence, 38-year-old Kyrylo Budanov, and the 58-year-old Oleksandr Syrskyi, the commander of the Ground Forces who has been in charge of the southeast sector and oversaw the unsuccessful defense of Bakhmut and is tasked with defending the nearly encircled city of Avdiivka near Donetsk.
Budanov was reportedly deeply reluctant to replace the popular Zaluzhny due to his immense popularity in the army while General Syrskyi, suffers from a bad reputation in the rank and file of the Ukrainian army because he is considered to have the mindset of a Soviet commander and ignored Ukrainian military losses in the defense of Bakhmut often referred to as the “Bakhmut meatgrinder.”
Ukrainian Society and the Army
General Zaluzhny’s interaction and publication of articles in the Western media is not entirely something new, or unusual when it comes to Ukrainian military officials. Security analysts who monitor civil-military relations in Ukraine have indicated that Zaluzhny’s decision to write such articles in the Western media or give interviews is simply a Ukrainian way of getting the attention of President Zelensky to alter his thinking on military strategy. Normally Ukrainian Presidents are shielded from senior military commanders by their advisers, such as Zelensky’s close friend and confidant, childhood friend, business partner, etc. Andriy Yermak. Some even refer to Yermak’s role as that of an Ottoman Vizier, advising the Sultan on a range of issues.
The role being played by presidential adviser Yermak is critically important to understanding Ukrainian civil-military relations. Yermak is viewed by many inside Ukraine as “the grey cardinal,” who is a key adviser to Zelensky on all issues similar in many respects to France’s Cardinal Richelieu, a key adviser to Louis XIII. Whether it is visits to the Ukrainian frontlines, meetings with foreign leaders, trips to the White House, or meetings at the US Congress, Yermak is always at Zelensky’s side. His role also periodically extends to foreign policy as well where he has been seen convening a meeting with a foreign dignitary and the Foreign Minister Kuleba is seen sitting off to the side of the table in a secondary role. Yermak’s name has repeatedly come up in discussions of Ukrainian military strategy due to his close relationship with Zelensky and his concern over the impact of the war on Ukrainian domestic politics.
As the popularity of Zaluzhny soared during the war Yermak is well known to have championed the generalship of General Syrskyi as a means for countering the popularity of Zaluzhny. One of the reasons why Yermak backed Syrskyi is attributed to what can be called “the Zabrodskyi factor” in Ukrainian domestic politics. In 2014 the Ukrainian General Mykhailo Zabrodskyi rose to fame on the battlefields of Donbas after successfully launching a long-distance guerilla attack known as the Great Raid deep behind Russian lines wreaking havoc on Russian units in one of the most famous military operations ever conducted by the modern-day day Ukrainian army. Zabrodskyi later joined President Poroshenko’s opposition and became a member of the Ukrainian parliament and became an outspoken critic of Zelensky.
Since the 2014 Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea, Ukrainian society has desperately needed modern-day heroes and sought to embrace what they perceive as a new, incorruptible class of military professionals like Zaluzhny and Zabrodskyi. Another more recent example is the emergence of the 38-year-old Ukrainian military intelligence chieftain Kyrylo Budanov.
One of the distinguishing features of Ukrainian society since the Russian invasion in 2014 and their efforts to halt Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine is the emergence of a deep respect for Ukrainian military officials and their devotion to defending the country. Ukrainian society views these military leaders as putting the interests of the country beyond their own greed and above politics. This is especially acute in a country like Ukraine which has been plagued by corruption among its politicians and oligarchs like Ihor Kolomoisky, and even the former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko who made a fortune in selling chocolate in Ukraine and also in Russia.
As one Ukrainian analyst at the BBC Ukraine service quoting the comments to radio NV by Mykhailo Gonchar of the XXI Global Studies Strategy XXI perception of Ukrainian society of the dispute with Zelensky is:
“Zaluzhny's resignation is not only the replacement of one general by another: it is a violation of an informal agreement by the Ukrainian authorities with society that the political leadership does not teach the military to fight, and the military does not get involved in political affairs. "(By dismissing Zaluzhny), Zelensky becomes not only a political leader, but also a military one. Even after appointing an ideal general in his place, he takes responsibility. The same Churchill or Roosevelt knew the limits of their responsibility... When a political leader gets involved in military affairs without having a great idea of what military affairs are, what war is, it will not lead to good results."
Indeed, if one reviews the article written by Zaluzhny on February 4, it is almost like he is speaking in a fatherly way addressing the nation, asserting in almost a Churchillian way of the difficulties ahead as American aid remains in doubt stating:
“We must contend with a reduction in military support from key allies, grappling with their own political tensions. …The weakness of the international sanctions’ regime means Russia, in partnership with certain others, is still able to deploy its military-industrial complex in pursuit of a war of attrition against us. We must acknowledge the significant advantage enjoyed by the enemy in mobilizing human resources and how that compares with the inability of state institutions in Ukraine to improve the manpower levels of our armed forces without the use of unpopular measures.”
While President Zelensky’s supporters claim that General Zaluzhny is trying to undermine him by giving these public interviews or writing op-eds for foreign audiences, it should be kept in mind that it is not uncommon in the Ukrainian case for senior-ranking military officials to frequently give foreign interviews to the Western media. A case in point is that the current head of Ukrainian military intelligence - Kyrylo Budanov has given dozens of interviews to the foreign media hailing Ukrainian military successes in its war with Russia, including the controversial topic of attacking targets inside Russia. Unlike Zaluzhny, Budanov is not viewed with the type of suspicion that Zaluzhny receives, nor does he rank above the Ukrainian President in public opinion polls either.
Outlook: No Good Options for Zelensky
Zaluzhny’s resignation appears to have avoided setting the scene for a protracted standoff between President Zelensky and the popular general. If Zaluzhny had stayed in his position refusing to resign then the internal debates would have sown deeper resentment between the two over the strategy of the war.
The appointment today of General Syrskyi as the new commander of Ukrainian armed forces, someone who ranked the lowest in popularity among Ukraine’s top three generals, indicates that there is a danger that frontline units, already exhausted by the war, might deepen their resentment over the recent political moves. Tension may grow with Zaluzhny removed from the scene and there is limited progress on the battlefield. Discontent over the prolonged and bloody defense of the Bakhmut is being replayed again at Avdiivka where the Ukrainian ground forces are hanging on to a single supply road as their positions are semi-encircled.
The positive side of Zaluzhny’s removal from the scene for the Ukrainian President is he can now avoid the risk of having another conflict erupt with the Ukrainian High Command over the general military strategy of the war and avoid provoking another rift that occurred previously between Zelensky and Zaluzhny over the defense of Bakhmut. In his excellent wartime account of the war in Ukraine, Our Enemies Will Vanish Wall Street Journal journalist Yaroslav Trofimov devoted an entire chapter of his book to the defense of Bakhmut calling this chapter the “Bakhmut Meatgrinder.” Trofimov attributes the heavy loss of life to defending the city to President Zelensky himself and his aide Yermak, noting that General Zaluzhny opposed the ill-fated attrition strategy due to the waste of Ukrainian manpower. This attrition strategy was backed by Yermak because it would adversely affect Ukrainian public opinion by giving the Kremlin a major propaganda victory and conveying an image of weakness to Putin.
The danger for Zelensky is that he no longer appears to be anywhere close to having a “Team of Rivals” surrounding him as did President Abraham Lincoln. Zelensky’s generals will likely be more complacent and fulfill his desire to defend Avdiivka at all costs to deny Putin a victory due to the upcoming Russian Presidential elections scheduled for March 15-17, 2024.
Going forward the one certainty that exists for Zelensky is having forced Zaluzhny to step down, he will have to deal with the fact he has likely forced an enormously popular general into the political opposition. This carries the risk that Zaluzhny could become a nightly figure on Ukrainian television questioning Zelensky’s wartime decision-making. Whether this happens or not remains unclear. Given Zaluzhny’s patriotism, it is doubtful that he might pursue such a course and likely cares more about the fate of the country. One indicator to look for in the coming days is we may see a selfie of the two posted to their Facebook accounts and that could be the end of the crisis, at least for now.
In the final analysis, the difficulty Zelensky has encountered in forcing Zaluzhny to step down is not good for the atmospherics for how the Ukrainian President is perceived in managing the war, at home and abroad. He still has to deal with an army that is not receiving the resources and manpower it needs. Moreover, the grumblings registered by the army ignored by the civilian leadership are only going to grow worse, particularly if significant manpower is lost in defending Avdiivka and Ukraine is forced to retreat from the embattled city. In the end, no good options exist for President Zelensky and much of this crisis is of his own making.