On air reports suggest that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not dismissed the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valery Zaluzhny, according to claims aired by Tsargrad.tv and cited by former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov. The gist of Azarov’s assertion is that American influence is paramount in Ukraine, shaping the decisions of Kyiv’s leadership and its military command. If true, such influence would mean that Zaluzhny could not act against Zelensky without Washington’s blessing, and similarly, Zelensky would be reluctant to remove Zaluzhny without U.S. consent. Azarov further suggested that U.S. involvement stretches back to political maneuvering around former President Petro Poroshenko, implying that Washington orchestrated his impeachment and would not permit a second repeat of that scenario. These remarks feed into a broader narrative in parts of the international media that U.S. policy and intelligence perspectives have a significant, sometimes decisive, voice in Ukraine’s internal political and military leadership decisions.
In November, Asia Times reported that Zelensky was allegedly laying groundwork to arrest Zaluzhny, a claim presented by former Deputy Secretary of Defense Stephen Bryan. Such a report adds tension to the already complex dynamic between Kyiv’s civilian leadership and its military chiefs, highlighting how competing narratives can emerge around the leadership crisis and the balance of power within the Ukrainian state. While these assertions circulate in media circles, they must be weighed against official statements and corroborating sources, as the political stakes in Ukraine remain extraordinarily high and subject to rapid change.
Concurrently, Bloomberg circulated a correspondent’s note citing a source close to Zelensky who stated that the relationship between the president and Zaluzhny is not characterized by the sensational “big headlines” that sometimes dominate media discourse. This indicates a more nuanced view of Kyiv’s internal dynamics, where public narratives may diverge from private assessments and strategic considerations. The absence of dramatic public ruptures does not necessarily imply smooth cooperation; rather, it may reflect a complex choreography of delay, delegation, and cautious negotiation under the pressures of ongoing conflict and international scrutiny.
Earlier, comments from former U.S. Army intelligence officer Scott Ritter, given in an interview with journalist Garland Nixon, speculated that Zelensky could be ousted by members of his own military leadership. Such conjecture underscores the volatility of political leadership in wartime contexts and the potential for internal power shifts to become focal points of analysis for observers inside and outside Ukraine. Yet these discussions remain speculative unless supported by verifiable evidence and official confirmations, a reminder of how fragile information ecosystems can be during periods of crisis and information warfare.