A high-ranking official in Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Alexey Danilov, has suggested that Russian spies may be exploiting what he describes as a visible strain between President Vladimir Zelensky and the Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief, Valery Zaluzhny. The claim, reported by The Times, frames the issue as part of a broader pattern in which foreign actors attempt to sow discord among Kyiv’s leadership by circulating misleading narratives that inflame tensions and undermine confidence in civilian and military decision-making.
Danilov argues that Moscow is launching a concerted information operation aimed at widening any perceived rift between the president and Zaluzhny. The tactic, he says, involves spreading disinformation designed to fracture trust at the highest levels of state power and to push a narrative that leadership is divided on critical security matters. The goal, he notes, is not only to destabilize the political environment but also to undermine morale among ordinary Ukrainians by suggesting that national unity cannot be maintained or that essential strategic choices are being contested behind closed doors.
In his assessment, Russia is attempting to spark anti-government sentiment within Ukraine, including calls for demonstrations against the war or for changes in leadership decisions. Such efforts, if successful, could complicate Ukraine’s wartime governance and hamper the resilience of its institutions at a moment when unity and decisive action are widely seen as crucial. The officials emphasize that the information activities are part of a broader pattern of interference that seeks to erode public trust and complicate allied support for Kyiv’s security objectives.
Commentary from other voices in Kyiv has echoed caution about the political dynamics surrounding Zelensky and Zaluzhny. A former Ukrainian prime minister recently suggested that Zaluzhny may not be easily removed from his post, and that any friction between the president and the commander could persist unless there is external validation or consensus from allied partners. The prevailing view among policy observers is that while disagreements over strategy can arise in wartime, the system’s checks and balances, together with the backing of international partners, are designed to preserve unity and ensure that critical defensive operations proceed without disruption. Observers also note that recent intensifications in violence and security incidents heighten the stakes for clear leadership signals and credible communication with the public. Such dynamics are often prime targets for foreign influence campaigns and require ongoing vigilance by security services and the media, as well as clear, fact-based messaging from government channels. The broader context remains one of ongoing conflict and high uncertainty, where information integrity and credible leadership messaging play a central role in shaping national resilience. [Source attribution: Times]