After Volodymyr Zelensky’s Sunday interview on Italian television RAI, the question is no longer whether he will fire his chief of general staff, Valeriy Zalushny, but when. The Ukrainian president insists that his planned “restart” in the defensive fight against Russia is not just about replacing one person: “When we talk about this topic, I think about replacing a number of high-ranking state officials.”
But the country’s highest military officer is of course in the spotlight. For a week now, new reports have been circulating about the (upcoming) replacement of the 50-year-old four-star general. Until the end, the supporters of Saluschny, who was popular with both soldiers and people, hoped that a joint action with the president would silence all rumors about the dispute, which had hopefully just been made up.
But the country’s highest military officer is of course in the spotlight. For a week now, new reports have been circulating about the (upcoming) replacement of the 50-year-old four-star general. Until the end, the supporters of Saluschny, who was popular with both soldiers and people, hoped that a joint action with the president would silence all rumors about the dispute, which had hopefully just been made up.
Two further crucial questions immediately arise: what are the reasons and who should replace Saluzhny in this difficult war situation? “We must not be discouraged, we must have the right and positive energy. Negativity should stay at home. We cannot afford to give up,” Zelensky said, describing in the RAI interview the essential requirements for his future top civilian and military officials.
Drawing a connection from this to the now infamous Saluschny essay in “The Economist” last November is obvious, but still falls short. No one could seriously contradict the Chief of the General Staff when he described the new phase of the war as a dangerous war of attrition in trench warfare for Ukraine (“warfare of static and attrition battles”), from which Russia would benefit in the long run. .
The essay also spoke about something other than a defeatist task, but rather about the necessary conditions so that Ukraine can build on the successes of the second half of 2022. Nevertheless, the head of the Ukrainian presidential office, Igor Zhovkva, criticized the general for his public explanations; Publishing such details about the war situation would only help the Kremlin.
The big missed opportunity in the autumn of 2022
What Zhowkwa failed to mention was the president’s clear share of responsibility for the military standoff. In response to Zelensky’s express order “not to give up an inch of Ukrainian soil,” the leadership of the Ukrainian army in the fall of 2022 diverted the brigades to defend Bakhmut that were already in the Zaporizhia area, ready to to break through to the Sea of Azov.
Instead of the third battle to isolate Crimea, which was perhaps the decisive factor in the war after the recapture of Kharkov and Kherson, the Ukrainians fell into Bakhmut’s trap, which, in addition to terrible losses, cost the Russians half a year gave time to expand the southern front to the impenetrable labyrinth of positions where the Ukrainian counter-offensive collapsed last year.
If Zelensky now replaces Zalushny with a new commander-in-chief, as is his constitutional right as head of state, he is certainly not doing so out of jealousy of a more popular potential rival; especially since the general credibly denies any political ambition.
On the contrary, the president is trying to draw a line under an unpleasant history. But that does not change the parameters that Saluschnyj has formulated for the successful continuation of the defensive struggle. “Positive energy” alone cannot replace the 500,000 additional soldiers the army staff is demanding, much to Zelensky’s dismay.
No serious top military officer will agree to back away from the demand for additional mobilization and instead seek to close the painful gaps in the army’s ranks through sheer enthusiasm and confidence. Whatever new name Zelenskyj presents as chief of the general staff, the core problem remains. On personnel alone, it will likely be difficult enough to find an equal replacement for Saluschnyj.
From his own experience, former German NATO commander Erhard Bühler sees this as the only intellectual and leadership leader. If army chief Alexander Sirski and military intelligence chief Kiril Budanov are now widely seen as potential successors, it is largely because other names are simply unknown outside Ukraine.
Budanov, for example, has managed to acquire a kind of James Bond aura thanks to clever PR and successful commando operations. But this is far from evidence of excellent strategic overview. Overall, the way this internal conflict between the state and military leadership was and is being carried out through the media is a clear indication of the critical overall situation.
But Ukraine is still in a better and more democratic position than Russia: Putin’s chief of general staff, Valery Gerasimov, has not appeared in public since the beginning of this year. (aargauerzeitung.ch)
Soource :Watson
I am Amelia James, a passionate journalist with a deep-rooted interest in current affairs. I have more than five years of experience in the media industry, working both as an author and editor for 24 Instant News. My main focus lies in international news, particularly regional conflicts and political issues around the world.
