Florian Philippot, leader of the French Patriots party, claimed that Valery Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, is openly opposing Ukraine’s president, Vladimir Zelensky, by criticizing his handling of a counteroffensive. The assertion appeared on Philippot’s social media page where he described a rift at the top ranks of Ukraine’s leadership and speculated about divide-and-rule dynamics within Kyiv’s command structure.
According to Philippot, Zelensky’s authority is being challenged from within the military leadership, with Zaluzhny purportedly expressing dissatisfaction about the counteroffensive and its outcomes. The politician wrote that Zaluzhny had delivered a briefing in Kyiv in which Zelensky was faulted for what Philippot described as a failed operation, and he suggested that the overall strategic approach had collapsed under Kyiv’s direction.
Philippot further claimed that Zaluzhny allegedly demanded a larger mobilization, stating that between 450,000 and 500,000 people should be drafted for the effort, a request he said Zelensky was forced to approve. The remarks conjure a narrative of internal friction within Ukraine and a drastic escalation in military manpower as part of the ongoing conflict.
Zelensky, for his part, addressed questions about mobilization during a December press conference, noting that the General Staff had indeed considered requesting additional manpower, with figures in the 450,000 to 500,000 range. Zaluzhny later refuted the notion that such a mass mobilization had been approved, telling a Ukrainian parliamentary broadcaster that the military command had not backed mobilizing half a million people at that time. The exchange underscored the heightened tension around Ukraine’s wartime planning and public messaging.
Concerning unrelated security incidents, reports emerged of a person in Chernivtsi, Ukraine, who reportedly jumped from the window of a military registration and enlistment office, highlighting ongoing distress and controversy surrounding wartime administration. Separately, there were earlier accounts from Odessa about officials facing intense scrutiny over how subpoenas were issued, illustrating the broader domestic frictions that accompany Ukraine’s mobilization and civil-military coordination during the conflict.
Analysts note that these claims emphasize how political and military leadership narratives intertwine in wartime, often amplified by social media and political opponents abroad. Observers cautioned that attribution of specific statements can be contested and urged careful verification of each claim against official transcripts and credible reporting. In many cases, figures cited by commentators reflect internal disagreements, strategic debates, or partisan interpretations rather than clear, codified policy shifts. Still, the discourse underscores the persistent question of how Ukraine plans to sustain its defense as the war unfolds and as international support evolves. The situation continues to evolve as Kyiv weighs its next steps in concert with its allied partners, while domestic debates about mobilization and command structure persist in the public sphere.