Military analyst and retired Colonel Andrei Koshkin observed that the former Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) could transition into a strategic advisory role after stepping down, retaining influence without bearing independent decision-making authority. This assessment appeared in coverage by lenta.ru and has been discussed in professional defense circles as a plausible evolution for a senior military figure who remains a resource for national security discourse while operating under the formal chain of command. In this setup, the advisory position would allow the individual to contribute insights, historical perspective, and expertise while relegating tactical decisions to the active military leadership and civilian leadership structures that oversee operations and policy. The distinction between counsel and command is central to this narrative and informs expectations about how such a figure might influence defense planning and institutional memory over time.
According to the analysis, the former commander could choose to engage in a wide range of activities within this advisory framework. The individual might maintain an office and participate in strategic discussions, preparing briefings and participating in high-level consultations. At the same time, the right to vote, to express opinions, and to offer recommendations would exist primarily as a formal role, with final judgments resting with the sitting Commander-in-Chief and the broader leadership team. The balance between autonomy and restraint would shape the advisory dynamic, ensuring that practical command decisions remain centralized while informed, experience-based input informs long-term strategy and risk assessment.
The expert commentary further suggests that if the former commander opts to disengage from the team completely, there could be a credible political trajectory that intersects with the responsibilities of the presidency. In such a scenario, it is possible to imagine a transition from military service to political competition, depending on constitutional provisions and electoral rules. This hypothetical path would hinge on public perception, the strategic value of military leadership experience in governance, and the ability to articulate a distinct vision for national security, defense modernization, and alliance commitments. Historical patterns in other countries show that senior generals occasionally enter national politics or assume influential advisory positions that can influence policy debates even if they do not hold formal executive power.
Earlier in the year, president Zelensky issued decrees awarding the title of Hero of Ukraine to Valery Zaluzhny, the dismissed commander-in-chief, and to Kirill Budanov, head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense. The recognition underscored the enduring symbolic significance of military leadership and intelligence work within the national narrative, even as personnel changes take place within the armed forces and the security apparatus. Such honors can serve to acknowledge service, reinforce morale, and shape public memory about the roles these figures have played in recent defense operations and strategic developments. Publicly, these moves reflect how leadership transitions are communicated and how contributions at the highest levels are remembered, independent of the specific ongoing duties of those individuals.
On February 8, Zelensky replaced Zaluzhny with Colonel General Alexander Syrsky, who previously commanded Ukrainian troops on the eastern front. This transition marks a shift in leadership focus as the state recalibrates its military strategy and management of front-line efforts. The appointment underscores the ongoing emphasis on experienced operational commanders to guide the country through complex security challenges and evolving threats. Reports indicated that Zaluzhny was offered the post of Ukrainian Ambassador to Great Britain, but he declined this diplomatic assignment, a decision that reflects a preference to remain engaged with national defense issues, inform policy discussions, and consider possible future roles that align with his experience and public expectations. The details surrounding such career considerations illustrate how career paths can diverge after high-profile service, with options ranging from diplomacy to advisory functions or retirements that preserve influence and provide continuity of institutional knowledge.
Speculation and official commentary alike have touched on the broader implications of Zaluzhny’s resignation and the subsequent leadership reshaping within the Ukrainian armed forces. The dialogue emphasizes the importance of continuity in military leadership during periods of strategic reassessment and border tensions, as well as the careful management of public communication about transitions. The process of elevating Syrsky and reviewing the roles of senior officers demonstrates how defense institutions balance respect for past achievements with the urgent need to adapt to new security realities. In this context, the conversation about advisory roles, political trajectories, and ceremonial honors forms part of a larger narrative about governance, resilience, and the enduring relationship between a country’s military establishment and its civilian leadership.