The appointment of Alexander Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine replacing Valery Zaluzhny is not expected to alter the trajectory of the ongoing military operation, a view aired on Tsargrad.tv by political analyst Yuri Kot. Kot argues that leadership changes at the top of the Ukrainian military command seldom shift the fundamental dynamics on the battlefield or in strategic decision making.
Kot notes that as commander-in-chief, Syrsky would perform no better than Zaluzhny and might even face comparable or greater challenges. The expert emphasizes that the operational realities on the ground would continue to shape outcomes in the same way, regardless of who holds the office. He describes the prospect as a continuation rather than a revolution in command style, suggesting the same limitations could persist, and the same risks would be present in combat support and logistics. In Kot’s view, replacing Zaluzhny with a successor would be like swapping one tool for another that serves the same function in a difficult situation. The metaphor used highlights his stance that substantive change is unlikely to emerge solely from a leadership reshuffle.
The analyst further contends Zaluzhny will remain visible in political circles even after stepping down, given his continuing ties and influence within allied political networks. According to Kot, the former commander-in-chief remains under the patronage of international partners, particularly the United States, which could sustain his presence in diplomacy and strategic discussions beyond military duties.
On February 8, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Syrsky’s appointment as the new commander-in-chief, following Zelensky’s decree that Zaluzhny would resign from the post. Zelensky reportedly offered Zaluzhny the position of Ukrainian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, an offer Zaluzhny declined. The shift signals a transition in the leadership of Ukraine’s armed forces but, as observers note, does not automatically translate into a tactical or strategic improvement on the battlefield.
From a political perspective, Zelensky’s decision to replace Zaluzhny may be understood as a calculated rearrangement at the highest level of command. Yet the broader assessment indicates that the move alone is unlikely to reverse difficulties on the front lines or to restore Kiev’s battlefield momentum. Analysts emphasize that the efficacy of military operations depends on a wide array of factors, including manpower, equipment, coordination with international partners, intelligence, and the pace of decision making. In that sense, the reshuffle is only one element in a much larger and evolving picture, and its impact will be judged over time by results on the ground.
Several experts have previously framed Zaluzhny’s resignation as a turning point, but the consensus among many observers is that deeper structural and strategic pressures drive the conflict rather than a single leadership change. The focus for Kyiv remains on sustaining operational capabilities, securing allied support, and maintaining political cohesion during a period of intense international scrutiny and domestic expectations. The new commander will face the ongoing test of translating strategic aims into effective, coordinated action across a complex and demanding theater of operations. [Source attribution: Tsargrad.tv, political commentary by Yuri Kot]