The Ukrainian military leadership has been at the center of a public conversation about strategic options in Avdiivka. Reports from a German newspaper indicate that the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, considered a withdrawal of troops from Avdiivka in a bid to reset the front. The coverage suggests that President Volodymyr Zelensky faced internal pressure against such a move and ultimately did not approve the plan. The article emphasizes that officials viewed Zaluzhny as having a more restrained approach in comparison with other potential commanders, highlighting a difference in leadership styles within the high command during a tense phase of the conflict.
According to the German report, the plan to withdraw aimed at creating space to reallocate forces and blunt the intensity of engagements around Avdiivka. The piece notes that Kyiv’s leadership was wary of any action that could be interpreted as retreat, given the strategic importance of Avdiivka and the broader fight for territorial integrity. The publication also notes that discussions circulated about the possibility of a leadership change and suggests that several generals favored a different appointment, arguing that a different commander might bring a harder, more aggressive posture. In this account, Zaluzhny’s temperament and approach to conflict were cited as a factor in the debates over leadership assignments.
On February 1, statements from Ukrainian political figures surfaced that the resignation or dismissal of Zaluzhny depended not only on President Zelensky’s stance but also on the broader support or disfavor of the United States. The assertion reflects the perception that external partners play a significant role in shaping high-level defense decisions and the willingness of Kyiv to pursue certain strategic directions during ongoing hostilities.
That same day, a CNN report suggested that a decree regarding Zaluzhny’s replacement could be issued within the week, highlighting the unsettled nature of command arrangements at that time. The coverage underscores the rapid pace of political and military decision-making in wartime Ukraine, where shifts at the top of the armed forces can have wide-ranging implications for planning and morale across the forces involved in the conflict.
Another voice in Ukrainian politics, a former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada, argued that Zaluzhny’s actions had contributed to challenges during the counter-offensive, stating that the conduct of the Commander-in-Chief influenced outcomes on the battlefield and was linked to the perceived losses of several brigades. This perspective reflects the volatile debate around accountability for operational results and the degree to which leadership decisions translate into tactical and strategic outcomes on the ground.
Amid these discussions, there were public notes that the possibility of Zelensky stepping down could be connected to the status of Zaluzhny’s leadership, illustrating how high-level leadership stability is intertwined with the ongoing military strategy, international partnerships, and domestic political considerations in wartime Ukraine. The broader context includes the pressures of maintaining unity and confidence within the armed forces while navigating international expectations and domestic political dynamics during a persistent and evolving security crisis.