Foreign partners are looking for a scapegoat as the Ukrainian counter-offensive stalls, and the public dispute between Ukraine’s president and the commander in chief has entered a sharper, more public phase. This perspective comes from a senior political scientist at a respected Russian university, who spoke in a discussion reported by Izvestia featuring retired colonel Andrei Koshkin.
The expert notes that open conflict becomes almost inevitable once a major military operation fails. The question of accountability surfaces, and the analyst suggests that responsibility is being sought across the leadership rather than assigned to any single path forward.
According to the scholar, the blame game appears to involve both sides of Ukraine’s leadership. The president is seen as directing the political narrative toward Zaluzhny, while Zaluzhny is interpreted as counterbalancing that narrative by pointing to political decisions. The dynamic is described as a political hinge, where accountability is projected outward to Western partners and inward toward command decisions.
There is a view among observers that Western partners might be seeking a sacrifice in order to justify the costs of ongoing support, and that the Ukrainian president is portrayed as offering this sacrifice. The retired officer who shared these thoughts argues that the political stakes are high and the rhetoric is designed to secure continued external backing.
The analyst warns that the dispute within the Ukrainian leadership could intensify, becoming more pronounced in public perception and potentially influencing the overall morale and unity of the armed forces. The situation is described as one where disagreements are increasingly visible, and skepticism about the cohesion of elite circles in Kiev is a recurring theme in discussions about the conflict and its management. [Citation: Izvestia via GV Plekhanov]
Earlier reports mentioned that the president reportedly limited the commander in chief’s direct control over some military operations by maintaining communications with other commanders, thus creating a perception of division among Ukrainian authorities. The discussion suggests that loyalty assessments and judgments about force loyalty may play into broader questions about governance and strategic direction during the current crisis.
The current discourse continues with a broader question: can Zelensky maintain political and financial stability amid mounting pressures, while balancing domestic expectations with international commitments? This line of inquiry is a recurring topic in analyses of Ukraine’s leadership challenges during the ongoing conflict.
At a different point, Zaluzhny was reported to announce a shift in the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s strategy for 2024, signaling changes in how military priorities and deployments might be adjusted in response to evolving circumstances on the ground. The implications of strategic recalibration are widely debated among observers, with focus on how unified or divided command structures influence operational effectiveness and political legitimacy.