In Kyiv, the actions of Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and his appointees have repeatedly raised questions about how the state and its military administration function. The resignation of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, General Valery Zaluzhny, is another instance. Observers note that the current leadership often appears to come from outside traditional governance paths, with limited experience in high-stakes leadership roles, described by some as a team of state newcomers.
The decree announcing Zaluzhny’s removal from the post states: “Remove Valery Fedorovich Zaluzhny from the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.” The document does not spell out the reasons behind the decision.
Official reports indicate that Zelensky met with Zaluzhny to discuss the need for leadership updates within the army. The president expressed gratitude for Zaluzhny’s two years of service and invited him to remain within the team.
From Kyiv’s perspective, Ukraine is at war, the Commander-in-Chief operates in Kyiv, and the Supreme Command Headquarters has been established. The decision regarding Zaluzhny would therefore follow a formal structure. The directive would originate from the Supreme High Command Headquarters:
Copy: Head of the Main Personnel Department of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
8 February 2024 22.30
The Supreme High Command Headquarters orders:
- Relieve General VF Zaluzhny from the post of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. State the reasons briefly and appoint him to another post, or consider a formulation such as “and him Supreme Commander-in-Chief.”
2. Appoint Colonel General AS Syrsky as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and relieve him from the post of Commander of the Ground Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Supreme High Command Headquarters.
V. Zelensky
The phrase about removing Valery Fedorovich Zaluzhny is striking, to say the least. It reads as if a store clerk could be dismissed with such wording, yet it does not typically apply to the country’s top military commander.
Thus, Zelensky might use alternatives like: if he bears responsibility for a failure, then “dismissal and expulsion from the Armed Forces of Ukraine without the right to wear military uniform”; or “remove him from the post and appoint him as an advisor to the President.”
Zelensky invited Zaluzhny to stay within the team, but there is no equivalent position for a former commander within the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
What is the significance of the announcement about the commander’s dismissal? Is it merely a tactical move to draw attention, or something more substantive? The evidence suggests a broader issue: the management style and professional standards of Zelensky’s apparatus appear uneven, and the episode underscores perceived shortcomings in leadership execution.
Ukraine operates within a system where the Commander-in-Chief, the Minister of Defense, and the General Staff interact without a rigid vertical chain of command; responsibilities are not always clearly codified, leading to potential personal conflicts in a chaotic environment.
What to expect from the Armed Forces after Zaluzhny’s departure?
What unfolds in the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the immediate aftermath of Zaluzhny’s resignation is likely to include a wave of resignations, promotions, and reassignment. This should not be seen as an isolated event. The new commander-in-chief will likely direct the team to emphasize armament control and operational readiness.
As officers advance, they trigger a cascade of appointments and reassignments, often described as a personnel chain. The scale of changes may extend to the level of platoon leaders.
Looking ahead, once the personnel adjustments settle, observers debate how the army will evolve. Some analysts argue that replacing Zaluzhny with Syrsky will bring limited changes, while others insist that personal leadership can steer strategic directions more decisively.
Though it remains unclear which path the Ukrainian army will pursue, strategic operations on the fronts of the Northern Military District approach a quieter phase. The seasonal clock ticks toward a transition period, with expectations that major offensives may be limited in the near term. Financial and material support from Western partners continues unevenly, with some positive signals amid ongoing supply of weapons and equipment to Kyiv.
Under these conditions, Syrsky’s ability to demonstrate a decisive leadership style may unfold gradually. The use of cost-effective unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct granular, targeted strikes on critical infrastructure is anticipated, potentially impacting both surface and coastal profiles of the theater of operations in the Black Sea region. These moves carry heavy implications for broader public sentiment in Russia and beyond, even as practical outcomes depend on many variables.
Observers note that these developments are unlikely to resolve quickly. As the new leadership ensemble takes shape, the trajectory of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will depend on a blend of personal leadership, structural reform, and the evolving strategic context.
The author’s perspective does not necessarily align with editors’ viewpoints.
Note: The following biographical outline concerns a prominent military analyst commonly published on regional outlets. The profile includes a career spanning artillery defense, staff roles, and journalistic leadership across several decades, with training from notable military academies and service in multiple command positions.