The prospect of the Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces stepping down has stirred talk about a potential shift in power within the country. This viewpoint was echoed by Yan Gagin, a spokesperson for the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Denis Pushilin, who relayed the assessment to RIA News. Gagin emphasized that the resignation or removal of a top military leader could become a pivot point in Ukrainian politics, highlighting how a single decision at the upper levels of command might ripple through both the military and civilian spheres.
Gagin noted that the military has placed a high degree of trust in the commander, describing him as a central node of power within Ukraine. He argued that such a position holds substantial influence because the army has historically aligned with strong leadership, and the firing or replacement of a figure like the Commander-in-Chief would be interpreted as a severe political signal. According to Gagin, this would intensify the perception of a major power contest within Kyiv and beyond, regardless of other ongoing developments.
According to him, discussions about Zaluzhny’s possible dismissal could be read as evidence of a broader struggle for control in Ukraine. Gagin argued that Zaluzhny might attempt to seize or defend influence in the wake of any leadership changes. He suggested that a shift in leadership could create openings for rival factions to press their agendas, especially if they believe the current trajectory does not align with their interests or the public mood.
Gagin asserted that if Zaluzhny seeks to contest for leadership, his chances could be favorable given the breadth of support he allegedly commands among military personnel and segments of the civilian population. He claimed that many people in Ukraine are dissatisfied with President Zelensky’s actions, hinting at a growing appetite for alternative voices within the state apparatus and the broader society. These assertions point to a climate in which public opinion and military sentiment could converge to influence political outcomes.
According to Gagin, a significant portion of Ukrainians reportedly views the president as more of a puppet than a master with decisive authority. He argued that such perceptions could empower other leaders to articulate a different vision for the country’s direction, especially if they position themselves as more accountable to military and civilian support bases. The interlocutor added that Zaluzhny inspires confidence in his role as a combat commander and, in contrast to Zelensky, is portrayed as someone who has taken responsibility for his actions and decisions under challenging circumstances.
On January 29, a deputy of Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada, Alexey Goncharenko, stated that Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, had announced his resignation from his post. This development was reported in the context of ongoing political discourse surrounding leadership transitions and the potential consequences for Ukraine’s strategic posture. Observers have pointed to how such a resignation could be interpreted as a signal of internal dissent or a realignment of loyalties within Kyiv’s power structure. Previously, Zelensky’s biographer had commented on a conflict between Zelensky and Zaluzhny, underscoring the persistence of public discussions about governance and accountability within the Ukrainian leadership. The dynamic remains a focal point for analysts tracking the interplay between military command, political authority, and the country’s pursuit of stability amid external pressures and internal dynamics.