Zelensky & Zaluzhny & Syrskyi
A reboot
As rumors began swirling about a potential rift between President Zelensky and Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny, I had no idea, whatsoever, whether they were true or not.
However, one thing was abundantly clear to me: I sought decisive action from the President of Ukraine’s office. Either the President should replace the commander or publicly affirm his confidence in his Commander-in-Chief.
A decisive and immediate response.
Unfortunately, that didn’t occur, leading to some disappointment. It seems the President of Ukraine is grappling with decisiveness amidst intense external scrutiny. It took nearly three weeks for them to announce their decision after the Western media began speculating about the rift.
In my view, both President Zelensky’s and the Commander’s offices made significant mistakes. It’s evident that communication between the two offices was severely compromised.
President Zelensky’s office reacted strongly following the Commander’s publication of an op-ed in the Economist. In it, the Commander asserted that the war had reached a stalemate and emphasized Ukraine’s urgent need for a technological breakthrough to break free from the current impasse.
The response from the President’s office unmistakably indicated that the commander had not consulted them before publishing the story. He ought to have recognized that his op-ed would have significant repercussions in the Western world. Actions of such magnitude should always involve the team, prioritizing collaboration over individual decisions.
This decision by the Commander was highly ill-advised. Military leadership should avoid actions that could cause political turbulence. Unfortunately, his story stirred up global political unrest.
Picture President Zelensky on a call with a Western counterpart just 24 hours before the op-ed’s publication, persuading them to provide a last-minute assistance that could potentially turn the tide of the war. Then, a day later, both leaders read the Commander’s article in the Economist, asserting that the war is at a stalemate and Ukraine lacks the means to secure victory with existing resources.
Sidestep the embarrassment. It’s crucial to recognize that such actions have the potential to strain relationships between civilian leadership in Ukraine and their counterparts in the West.
Republican Senators pounced on the Commander’s statement:
Sen. JOSH HAWLEY (R-Mo.), a skeptic of more aid to Kyiv, said that Zaluzhnyy’s candor blew a major hole in the administration’s Ukraine policy. Their pitch, Hawley contended, is “we need to keep funding Ukraine, in all aspects, not just militarily, we need to provide money for their pensions and all the rest so that it can remain a stalemate.”
“That naturally raises the question: What exactly is our endgame strategy?” he asked. “What’s the plan here? I don’t think they have a plan.” Sen. J.D. VANCE (R-Ohio), who is openly opposed to further assisting Ukraine, had a similar view, saying the goal should be to move toward a negotiated agreement between Kyiv and Moscow.
Now that a significant mistake has been made, the optimal response from the President’s office would have been to mount a robust defense of the Commander, who faced intense criticism from various circles.
Rather than standing in support of the commander, the President’s office took a different approach. They outright dismissed the commander’s opinion. It was brutal. It was unnecessary. On November 4th, 2023, NYTimes published the response from the Office of the President.
Speaking on national television, a deputy head of the office of the president, Ihor Zhovkva, said Gen. Valery Zaluzhny’s assertion that the fight against Russia was deadlocked “eases the work of the aggressor,” adding that the comments stirred “panic” among Ukraine’s Western allies.
At the same time, Mr. Zelensky disputed the general’s characterization of the fighting. “Time has passed, people are tired, regardless of their status, and this is understandable,” he said at a news conference on Saturday, adding: “But this is not a stalemate, I emphasize this once again.”
Upon reading those comments, my immediate reaction was…
Oh. No………..
The President says the war is not in a stalemate. The Commander says the war is in a stalemate. How are they both going to present their short, medium, and long-term plans to win the war? How will they sit in the same room with Western counterparts?
They cannot.
Someone had to go.
In a democracy, the President comes ahead of the Commander. With the powers granted to him by the people of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine chose to replace his commander.
I hope President Zelensky’s office makes it clear to the next commander that he must refrain from making public announcements without prior approval.
How much uproar did Putin’s continuous hiring and firing of commanders create in 2022 and 2023? Nothing. Such actions are expected in a dictatorship. How much political blowback and media attention is President Zelensky receiving over his decision to replace his commander-in-chief? A significant amount.
That is good for a democracy.
That’s how it should be. We don’t have to give President Zelensky a blank check on everything he does, not even during war. He is not a dictator. By making him aware that his actions will not keep slipping under the radar, we can help his office improve.
I am glad he exercised his authority. I am also glad that he is facing criticism for his decision. I am glad that he is under pressure to deliver. It is time for his office to learn the importance of working closely with the next commander and including them in making important political and military decisions.
Between the following three, which one should we care about the most?
- People of Ukraine
- President Zelensky’s office
- Ukraine Commander-in-Chief’s office
The first one. The other two are just tools to protect the first one. Two and three had a difference. Two exercised its authority. It’s time to move on.
The incoming chief, Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, will have humongous shoes to fill. Associated Press says his selection is hardly a surprise:
The man Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy named Thursday to lead the country’s military has played a key role in some of Ukraine’s biggest victories in its war with Russia, including overseeing the successful defense of the capital in the early days of the invasion.
The choice of Syrskyi as chief commander is hardly a surprise, as few in the Ukrainian military have the experience and know-how to be able to fill the shoes of his popular predecessor, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Syrskyi’s battlefield successes have earned him the backing of his soldiers, who have been locked in grinding battles for two years.
Syrskyi, 58, is credited with initially organizing the defense of Kyiv in February 2022, when many in Ukraine still rejected Western warnings that a Russian attack seemed imminent. He was later bestowed with the Hero of Ukraine award, the country’s highest honor, for his role in repelling Moscow’s advance on the capital.
But it certainly will not be a walk in the park. The situation on the frontline is dire due to severe ammunition shortages. I firmly believe that Ukraine will experience some territorial losses. It is not far-fetched to imagine Russia intensifying the information war by attributing the losses to Zelensky and Syrskyi, creating further confusion in the minds of Ukrainian soldiers. Commander Zaluzhnyi is well respected by the people of Ukraine as well as the troops.
The President has stepped into a minefield. He can navigate through this, but only by keeping the new commander as close to his office as possible and fostering teamwork.
Instead of having two capable individuals working separately, they must work together as a unified team.
Is this a bad decision that will derail Ukraine?
A clash between civilian and military leadership is not a new phenomenon. It is more likely to happen during war.
Abraham Lincoln, during the American Civil War, made several changes in military leadership. One notable instance was when he relieved General George B. McClellan from his command of the Army of the Potomac in 1862 due to McClellan’s perceived slowness in pursuing Confederate forces and lack of aggressive action.
Harry S. Truman famously relieved General Douglas MacArthur from his command during the Korean War in 1951. This decision was made due to disagreements between Truman and MacArthur over war strategy and the handling of the conflict, particularly regarding the approach towards China and MacArthur’s public criticism of the civilian leadership.
Ukraine has pushed the reset button.
It occurred at a very bad time. However, continuing with the previous arrangement would have been extremely detrimental because both civilian and military leadership publicly expressed differing views on the future course of the war. Their challenges are substantial, and multiple solutions are conceivable. There was nothing inherently wrong with differing perspectives on how to achieve victory. The issue arose from failing to handle these differences behind closed doors and instead allowing them to become public knowledge.
Allowing such perception to persist would have caused more harm than any potential benefits from continuation. Now, Ukraine has initiated a reset.
Resets can lead to various outcomes. You can succeed, fail, or remain stuck where you are. However, it would be unfair to presume only one of these outcomes without allowing the new commander time to settle into his role.
