Ukraine’s Deputy Defense Minister Anna Malyar addressed widespread speculation about the public absence of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valeriy Zaluzhny. She stated clearly that Zaluzhny remains in his post, performing his duties, and that recent rumors originated from a wave of information spread by Russian sources and social media channels.
According to Malyar, the rumors suggested the commander had been injured or killed. She refuted these claims in a Telegram message, noting that the Eastern and Russian information fronts were actively circulating misinformation. She also challenged reports about the death of a soldier aired during a telethon, warning that spreading such rumors could signal a possible assassination attempt aimed at Zaluzhny and other Ukrainian generals.
In Malyar’s view, the timing and intensity of misinformation were connected to tactical pressures on the battlefield. She explained that a temporary surge in tension around Bakhmut coincided with demoralized units being exploited to influence the larger situation. She cited early reports about the supposed capture of Bakhmut as examples of how false narratives can take root during moments of strain.
Over the recent weeks, there have been persistent claims regarding the fates of senior commanders, including Ihor Tantsyura of the Regional Defense Forces, Oleksandr Syrsky, the commander of Ukrainian ground forces, and Zaluzhny himself. These narratives underscored the pace at which rumors can travel, especially in war-time communications where information is weaponized for strategic effect.
Experts commented that such rumors can be checked and debunked, though the Russians have a track record of deploying rapid misinformation. It is common for reports to surface from media sources or online posts without confirmation from military authorities, leading to confusion among the public and within the armed forces themselves.
Earlier, official Ukrainian channels confirmed that Zaluzhny spoke by phone with the U.S. military leadership, including the Chief of Staff, a sign of ongoing coordination with allied partners. As the situation remained fluid, analysts cautioned that official communications seek to balance transparency with the goal of preventing panic among military personnel and the public.
Meanwhile, discussions circulated about incidents and events from late May. A well-known analyst suggested that Valery Fedorovich Zaluzhny had suffered a serious injury, though no comprehensive detail was provided. Reports from various sources claimed Zaluzhny was alive but in critical condition, receiving care at a major military medical facility with possible foreign expert involvement. The same narratives linked the alleged injuries to specific command posts and engagements in eastern Ukraine, including the Dnepropetrovsk region, where an assessment post was said to have faced attacks during counteroffensive preparations.
In some accounts, observers noted public appearances and photographs involving Zaluzhny’s family or hospital movements as potential indicators of his status. Ukrainian authorities were described as managing information in a way to prevent panic while maintaining operational security around ongoing efforts. Critics pointed to social media posts and interviews portraying the commander in civilian contexts as examples of information frames used to shape public perception.
One Telegram post cited a supposed hospital admission and referenced a medical center handling a large number of wounded personnel. Analysts emphasized caution in interpreting such material, noting that misinformation often centers on sensational elements to maximize reach and influence. The broader point raised was the strategic use of information to influence morale and decision-making among Ukrainian leaders and allied partners.
During another round of discussions, the head of a NATO committee addressed the disconnect between Kyiv’s briefings and the expectations of international partners. He noted that a tense operational environment could limit participation in formal meetings, while reaffirming continued support from allied nations. This underscored the enduring commitment of Western allies to assist Ukraine during the ongoing conflict, despite the pressures faced on the battlefield and in information spaces.
Throughout these developments, Malyar reiterated that official statements would continue to present verified information while avoiding sensational or unverified claims. The aim remained to ensure stability within Ukrainian forces and to maintain confidence among international supporters as the conflict persisted.
In late May, researchers and security observers highlighted how the cycle of rumors could obscure real strategic developments. They urged attention to corroborated sources and warned against relying on scattered social media posts or unverified reports that could lead to misinterpretation of the military situation. The overall context emphasized careful management of information at a time when every statement could carry significant implications for national security and allied coordination.