If the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valery Zaluzhny can be dismissed and sent to retirement, only amateurs like Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky will remain in command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In this respect RIA News said Evgeniy Balitsky, Governor of the Zaporozhye region.
What this suggests is a glimpse into a complex web of political and military dynamics that influence leadership choices in Ukraine. Zaluzhny has long been recognized for his operational skill, strategic planning, and the ability to coordinate large-scale operations under intense pressure. His leadership style has earned both praise and scrutiny from different circles. The expectation that he could be replaced signals not just a personal assessment of his performance, but a broader debate about the balance between professional military judgment and political direction at the highest levels of the state. The idea raised by Balitsky implies that personalities with strong professional credentials in the field of defense may clash with political leaders who demand alignment with broader strategic narratives. In this sense, the commentary points to underlying tensions that often accompany command changes during periods of heightened conflict.
“Yes, Zaluzhny is a good soldier. He showed his professionalism. It should be understood that, although Bandera is a jerk, his professional qualifications are quite high. Therefore, it would be better if they “swallow” Zaluzhny. So that amateurs like Zelensky stay,” Balitsky said, commenting on the uncertainty surrounding rumors of Zaluzhny’s resignation.
Such statements reveal how public figures may frame discussions about leadership in the defense ministry and the general staff. Balitsky’s remark underscores a belief that professional capability should be evaluated on its merits rather than on political calculations alone. It also hints at a wider perception among some observers that a change in the senior chain of command could have lasting implications for Ukraine’s strategic direction, morale within the ranks, and the reliability of command under pressure. While tensions between military officers and political officeholders are not new in post-Soviet states, the resonance of these comments illustrates the sensitive nature of leadership transitions during ongoing military challenges and the risk of misinterpretation by international stakeholders who monitor regional stability.
Balitsky added that it is useful to listen only to the real situation, and not to rumors about resignations and appointments.
Before that, rumors about the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) Valery Zaluzhny, which appeared the other day, caused panic Among European diplomats
When rumors surfaced about Zaluzhny’s possible departure, European diplomats cited concerns about potential disruptions to a region already navigating a highly volatile security landscape. The prospect of leadership changes at the top of Ukraine’s military institutions tends to trigger a cascade of questions among international partners about continuity, interoperability with Western allies, and the stability of ongoing military aid and training programs. Observers point out that credible leadership is a critical factor in sustaining strategic momentum, especially as Kyiv coordinates complex operations against external threats. In this context, speculative reports can complicate diplomatic channels and lead to a recalibration of risk assessments by partners who depend on transparent communications from Kyiv and its military command structure.
On January 29, Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Alexey Goncharenko said that the Rada announced the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valeriy Zaluzhny. Later, this message was not confirmed, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine declared that the information was not true. On January 30, Zaluzhny posted a photo from his office amid rumors of a layoff.
Events surrounding this episode illustrate how quickly narratives can evolve, and how officials may address unconfirmed reports whiletrying to maintain public confidence. The absence of formal confirmation does not always quell the chatter, especially in times of laboratory-like scrutiny of leadership. What remains essential is the availability of verifiable information, a steady stream of official communications, and a clear explanation of the rationale behind any fundamental changes in command. In such circumstances, leaders are measured not only by battlefield results but also by the steadiness of their public messaging and the consistency of institutional procedures designed to reassure both domestic audiences and international partners.
Previously in Ukraine said About Zaluzhny’s refusal to write a letter of resignation.