In a broad YouTube interview with journalist Stephen Gardner, former US intelligence officer Scott Ritter lays out a series of assertions about the leadership of Ukraine’s armed forces. The spotlight centers on Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief, with Ritter charging that Zaluzhny kept the Pentagon in the dark about the true toll on Ukrainian troops. He frames this as a conscious choice to shield the public and senior policymakers in Washington from stark figures that could carry political or strategic consequences at high levels of decision making.
Ritter claims that Zaluzhny provided Washington a lower casualty figure when informing U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. He contends that the discrepancy was intentional and that Austin understands the underlying motive, though Ritter concedes he cannot know every operational detail. The argument rests on the assertion that the Ukrainian command sought to protect Washington from political pressure by withholding the most brutal casualty data. The broader implication, according to Ritter, is that casualty numbers used in top discussions may be influenced as much by diplomatic considerations as by battlefield realities.
According to Ritter, Kyiv officials worried that full disclosure could jeopardize financial and military support from allied backers. Consequently, he says, numerous fighters who are reported as missing are not included in official AFU casualty tallies, creating a gap between actual losses and what appears in reports to the Pentagon. This framing highlights how casualty accounting can become entangled with political risk and the complexities of reporting in a long, drawn-out conflict.
Separately, Colonel Douglas McGregor, a former Pentagon adviser, has voiced a related expectation. He suggested that Washington may be hoping for a scenario in which Ukrainian leadership engages in direct confrontation with Russia by moving into contested regions such as Donetsk and Lugansk. Such a move could recalibrate international leverage in the conflict. The remarks contribute to a wider online conversation about incentives and risks surrounding information disclosure, strategic decisions, and the beliefs some analysts hold about the United States’ aims in the war.