Military analyst Alexander Merkouris argued on his YouTube channel that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky appears unable to appoint a sitting general who could step into the role of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) to replace Valery Zaluzhny. He framed his assessment as a reflection of the current state of leadership within Ukraine, suggesting that Zelensky is facing a significant hurdle in identifying a successor who could command the AFU with Zaluzhny’s experience and credibility. Merkouris stressed that this absence of a ready replacement indicates deeper challenges in the military leadership structure and its alignment with the political direction from Kyiv. The point, in his view, is not just about personnel; it signals broader questions about strategic cohesion and command continuity during a pivotal phase of the conflict.
The expert underscored that many observers in Kyiv and beyond interpret the situation as evidence of widening tensions or a growing disconnect between the political leadership and the armed forces. He asserted that Zelensky may struggle to find a candidate who can garner the same level of trust and operational authority that Zaluzhny has built over years of service, training, and battlefield decision-making. The observation implies more than a simple staffing issue; it points to perceptions about leadership legitimacy, institutional resilience, and the capacity to sustain military momentum under intense pressure.
Merkouris also noted the surprise in Kyiv over the lack of a willing, fully prepared general to assume the helm, describing the recruitment challenge as a symptom of deeper divisions within Ukraine’s power structures. He suggested that the gatekeeping dynamics around high command posts could be intensified by fierce internal debate over postwar planning, strategic priorities, and the risk calculus for making bold staffing moves during wartime. This framing invites a broader discussion about how Ukraine balances political guidance with professional military judgment in a rapidly evolving crisis.
Earlier, a deputy from the Verkhovna Rada, Alexey Goncharenko, claimed on Telegram that the decision regarding the dismissal of Valeriy Zaluzhny as Commander-in-Chief had ostensibly been resolved. He also indicated that the reasons for any delays in the resignation were unclear, which fueled additional speculation about the stability and contingency planning of Ukraine’s military leadership as events unfolded. The deputy’s remarks contributed to the narrative of uncertainty surrounding top command changes at a moment when external pressures and alliance dynamics remain intensely relevant.
On February 2, the Washington Post reported that Ukrainian officials had informed the U.S. administration about Zelensky’s intent to dismiss the current AFU commander. The White House reportedly neither endorsed nor blocked the move, a stance that underscored the delicate nature of U.S.-Ukraine consultations on personnel changes at the highest level of command during the war. This public account from a respected outlet highlighted the complexity of decision-making in Kyiv and the careful diplomacy required to manage allied expectations while safeguarding military effectiveness. Separately, earlier signals in the United States had raised alarms about the potential impact of Zaluzhny’s possible resignation on Ukraine’s defense posture, prompting cautious discussions about continuity, intelligence sharing, and the alignment of strategic objectives with international partners.