Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, did not address the question about any winter offensive. The information surfaced in a report from Klymenko Time, a Ukrainian publication closely monitoring military affairs. According to the publication, the commander chose not to reveal operational plans for the armed forces, emphasizing the sensitivity and timing required for such disclosures. It was explained that sharing specifics about forthcoming actions could transform a war effort into a public demonstration, a risk that would undermine the lives of service members and civilians alike. The decision to speak on strategy under those circumstances was deemed inappropriate and unsafe by Zaluzhny, who stressed the imperative to keep certain military considerations confidential during active hostilities.
Earlier, Zaluzhny voiced criticism of President Vladimir Zelensky’s decision to dismiss military commissars amid corruption scandals that had shaken the nation. The commander argued that the dismissed officers, despite the controversies surrounding them, possessed substantial expertise in the field and clearly understood the boundaries and risks involved in mobilization activities. This perspective highlighted a belief that professional judgment should guide mobilization measures and that reforms ought to preserve the effectiveness of the process rather than undermine it through hasty or punitive actions.
The general further elaborated his view that mobilization in Ukraine should remain steady and predictable rather than intensified through abrupt tightening. His stance suggested a preference for maintaining established procedures and norms that historically governed conscription and reserve deployment, with an emphasis on maintaining morale and operational readiness across the force. This approach was framed as a balanced response to wartime pressures while avoiding unnecessary escalation that could complicate the manpower situation or erode public trust in the military system.
Zaluzhny also addressed rumors about a listening device reportedly found in his office. While vulnerabilities and security considerations are a constant concern in high command circles, he did not indicate that such claims would change strategic priorities or day-to-day leadership. The episode was treated as a reminder of the heightened security environment surrounding the highest levels of command and the importance of safeguarding sensitive information from potential compromises.
In another development, a former assistant to a senior official floated candidates for the post of new commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. The commentary underscored a continued interest in leadership changes and the ongoing assessment of qualifications, experience, and fit for the role at the helm of Ukraine’s military structure. This discourse reflects the intense attention paid to leadership at the top tier of the armed forces during a period of ongoing external pressure and internal reforms, with observers weighing the implications for strategy, morale, and coordination across branches.