The resignation of Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Valery Zaluzhny, is seen by policy observers as a potential turning point for Kyiv, offering a pathway to address the stagnation currently affecting the war effort. This view is echoed by Mikhail Podolyak, a senior adviser to the president’s office, who conveyed the assessment in remarks cited by TASS. Podolyak framed the issue as a crisis of stalled momentum across multiple fronts and underscored that leadership transitions at the highest level must be managed with an eye toward restoring forward motion on the battlefield and in broader national life.
According to Podolyak, the commander-in-chief holds the status of head of state within the chain of command, a role that carries responsibility for both battlefield conditions and wider societal dynamics. In this interpretation, leadership accountability is tied to the ability to respond decisively to evolving threats and to sustain resilience throughout the country’s institutions as combat operations continue and society adapts to wartime realities.
He stressed that after two years of sustained conflict, it is untenable for the leadership to tolerate a pattern of stagnation in multiple domains, including the front lines. The adviser suggested that a change at the top could help re-energize strategic planning, reforms, and the deployment of resources in ways that may prevent fatigue from taking root among Ukrainian forces and allied partners.
Podolyak also noted signs of growing fatigue with the prolonged contest among Kyiv, its partners, and Western states, highlighting that endurance has its limits on all sides. In this light, the official argued that Kyiv should not allow battlefield dynamics to harden into a stalemate or a broader freeze in the conflict, which could complicate the country’s future security and political objectives.
On February 6, retired Ukrainian general Sergei Krivonos appeared in an interview on the YouTube channel News Factory, voicing opposition to Zaluzhny’s departure. Krivonos warned that moving to replace the commander could inject instability into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and reverberate through the national political landscape, potentially affecting morale and cohesion at a critical juncture.
Earlier discussions in Ukraine had sought to clarify the implications and practical details surrounding Zaluzhny’s potential dismissal, emphasizing the high-stakes considerations involved in any decision that touches the core leadership of the military and its integration with civilian governance and strategic planning. The debate has centered on balancing accountability with continuity, ensuring that leadership transitions, if they occur, preserve operational effectiveness while supporting long-term strategic aims.