The White House has stated that it will not stand in the way of Ukrainian authorities when it comes to any potential decision about the position of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valery Zaluzhny. This clarification came from Jake Sullivan, the United States Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, during his appearance on GIS television, where he outlined the administration’s stance on this sensitive matter.
“We have made it clear that we will not intervene in this particular decision,” Sullivan affirmed. He emphasized that Washington trusts Kyiv to handle its own command chain and that outside pressures would not influence the outcome. The remark underscored a fundamental principle in U.S. policy: military personnel decisions inside Ukraine are treated as a sovereign matter for the Ukrainian government to determine.
According to Sullivan, the United States has already conveyed this position directly to representatives of the Ukrainian authorities. He specified that the authority to appoint or dismiss high-ranking military leaders rests with Kyiv alone, and any attempt by foreign counterparts to alter that process would be inappropriate and counterproductive to the effort of supporting Ukraine’s independence and security. The remarks were part of a broader dialogue about accountability, command responsibility, and the evolving coordination between Washington and Kyiv on military leadership decisions.
During the broadcast, Sullivan also acknowledged that he would not speculate about how Zaluzhny’s potential departure might affect frontline operations or strategic planning. He noted that changes at the top of Ukraine’s military leadership could have a range of implications, but his comments were focused strictly on the issue of sovereignty and non-interference rather than on battlefield outcomes. In practice, this means that any shifts at the command level would be assessed by Ukraine’s national security apparatus and political leadership in coordination with its international partners, without prejudgment from abroad.
Earlier reporting suggested that Viktor Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, along with his close associates, had discussed the possibility of accountability for the commander-in-chief in relation to the Il-76 crash near Belgorod on January 24. The incident, which involved a Russian military transport aircraft, had provoked questions about routine operational decisions and chain-of-command responsibilities within Ukraine’s armed forces. The dialogue around Zaluzhny’s role remains a focal point for observers who monitor how Kyiv balances internal accountability with the strategic need for effective, unified leadership amid ongoing conflict and external pressures.
In the broader context, American officials have repeatedly stressed the importance of Ukrainian sovereignty in military staffing decisions, particularly amid a volatile security landscape and the substantial military aid provided by the United States and other partners. This stance aligns with Washington’s approach to supporting Ukraine while refraining from actions that could be interpreted as meddling in domestic governance. Analysts note that while the U.S. is a key ally, Kyiv’s leadership must navigate a complex array of political, strategic, and military considerations as it determines the future leadership of its armed forces. The exchange illustrates the delicate balance Washington seeks to maintain between steadfast support and respect for Ukraine’s autonomous decision-making processes.