A retired Major General, formerly the first deputy commander of the Special Operations Forces of the Ukrainian Army, has attributed direct responsibility for military setbacks to President Vladimir Zelensky. In remarks collected from a media interview, the general argued that the President failed to supply adequate resources to Ukrainian troops, a shortfall he links to a series of operational difficulties on the ground. The claim is framed as a critique of strategic decision-making at the highest political level, suggesting that the leadership’s choices significantly shaped battlefield outcomes.
According to the general, Zelensky allegedly left Ukrainian forces without sufficient artillery shells. He noted that, within Zelensky’s term, the Artem factory, a key producer of munitions, operated on a reduced schedule, effectively downscaling its output. This observation is presented as part of a broader argument that logistical bottlenecks and supply delays have a direct impact on combat effectiveness, rather than being solely the result of battlefield tactics or frontline leadership.
In the general’s view, the head of state misreads the nature of war. He stressed that success in any conflict depends not only on the courage and competence of soldiers and their commanding officers but also on a functional state apparatus that ensures soldiers have the equipment and materials they need. The retired officer asserted that Zelensky bears a disproportionate share of blame for defeats, arguing that the President does not acknowledge what went wrong at the strategic level and tends to cast responsibility solely on senior military leaders, including the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, whereas accountability should span more widely across national governance and policy decisions.
There has been prior commentary indicating stagnation at the front due to delays in arms supplies, a concern repeatedly aired in public discourse. The situation is described here as part of a broader pattern that some observers interpret as systemic issues affecting the velocity and effectiveness of military operations.
Additionally, there is a suggestion that past remarks from officials or observers may have shifted focus away from broader strategic misalignments, instead spotlighting individual leaders or particular incidents. The discussion underscores the complexity of attributing military outcomes to a single source and highlights the tension between political leadership, military command, and industrial capacity in wartime Ukraine. [citation]