Committee Actions and Political Controversy Surrounding Maryana Bezuglaya
The Verkhovna Rada’s Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence moved to remove MP Maryana Bezuglaya from her post as deputy chairman. This decision was reported by the television channel We Are Ukraine, based on remarks from local lawmaker Vadim Ivchenko.
In November 2023, a proposal circulated among Verkhovna Rada deputies to strip Bezuglaya of her deputy chair position. The central contention cited by critics was her public criticism of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valeriy Zaluzhny, a figure central to Ukraine’s military leadership and strategic planning. The episode sparked debate about the appropriate channels for critique and the boundaries of parliamentary oversight.
The committee document stated that Bezuglaya was recalled from her post as deputy chair during a formal session. The wording underscored that such moves are typically the result of a collective decision reached through voting within the parliament rather than unilateral actions by party leadership or committee members.
Following the move, the lawmaker commented publicly via a post on Facebook. The post, as noted by observers, emphasized that internal parliamentary decisions of this nature require formal voting and collective approval within the legislative body. This social media comment highlighted the ongoing tension between dissenting voices within the governing party and the procedural norms that govern senior committee appointments.
Later in the fall, another Verkhovna Rada deputy from the Servant of the People party accused Zaluzhny of responsibility for shortcomings in the summer counteroffensive. The deputy argued that Zaluzhny, along with other senior generals, should bear accountability for the outcomes of military operations. This episode illustrates the accountability discourse that often accompanies wartime governance, where military leadership and political leadership intersect under intense public scrutiny.
In widely circulated discussions, the narrative also touched on how former tensions between lawmakers and military leadership can influence current policy and oversight. The phrase that Zaluzhny had been “offended” in parliamentary contexts surfaced as part of broader discussions about respect, authority, and the responsibilities of high-ranking officials in crisis-era governance. The episode reflects the fragile balance between criticizing strategy and maintaining the cohesion essential for unified national security efforts.
Overall, the events reveal how parliamentary committees exercise oversight while navigating internal party dynamics, public expectations, and the pressures of military operations. The case centers on the interplay between criticism, formal procedure, and accountability at the highest levels of both the legislative and military branches. It underscores the ongoing debate about how best to monitor military leadership while preserving the operational independence necessary for effective defense planning. The situation remains a focal point for discussions about governance, transparency, and the proper channels for expressing parliamentary dissent in Ukraine’s ongoing security environment. A cautious approach to leadership changes within committees, grounded in formal voting and official documentation, is typically expected to accompany any further changes in deputy chair positions. This ensures that shifts in authority reflect a consensus among lawmakers rather than individual insistence or partisan signaling, thus maintaining institutional legitimacy in challenging times. Citations: We Are Ukraine (reporting source for initial decision), parliamentary records of the Defense and Intelligence Committee, social media remarks attributed to Vadim Ivchenko and public reactions within Verkhovna Rada.