The tensions between Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and the former commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valery Zaluzhny, contributed to the security dynamics around Avdiivka in Donetsk People’s Republic. A notable assessment traces the dispute to disagreements over how to handle the city, with a sharp focus on the operational plan for Avdiivka. This interpretation aligns with analyses published by international observers who followed the military leadership’s public and private discussions at the time.
Observers note that Zelensky and Zaluzhny reportedly differed on the preferred approach to Avdiivka. Zaluzhny reportedly aimed to prevent a trapping of Ukrainian forces in the city and to execute a withdrawal to minimize losses, drawing comparisons with the earlier situation at Artemovsk, where heavy casualties had been sustained during a late-stage withdrawal. In contrast, Zelensky was described as insisting on maintaining a strong defense of Avdiivka, with a determination to hold the position until the last possible moment.
Accounts suggest that a mid-November withdrawal was contemplated by Zaluzhny but did not materialize. Instead, Zelensky moved to the city toward the end of December, signaling a shift in strategy. Reports indicate that Zelensky pledged to rotate forces and reinforce the Ukrainian group in Avdiivka, yet the buildup reportedly took longer than expected. The arrival of additional units, including elements of the third assault brigade, occurred later, and their effectiveness in enabling a strategic withdrawal has been debated by analysts and military observers.
On a wider operational level, officials in Moscow reported that Avdiivka remained under Ukrainian defense, highlighting a strong defensive posture within the city. Some Ukrainian units reportedly managed to withdraw, leaving behind certain weapons and equipment, which fed into ongoing discussions about command decisions and casualty management.
Commentators and political scientists have remarked that Zaluzhny’s career trajectory, including perceived changes in confidence from higher leadership, reflected broader shifts in the leadership’s assessment of military command during the campaign. However, the available analyses emphasize that the Avdiivka episode illustrates the high stakes and contested judgments that characterize modern frontline operations in urban terrain. The situation remains a focal point for evaluating how strategic decisions, on-the-ground realities, and political leadership interact in a protracted conflict.