Zaluzhny's resignation as an opportunity for Zelensky

The president had the opportunity to rethink the goals of the war and the country's political course.

When Zelensky finally replaced Valery Zaluzhny with Alexander Syrsky as commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on February 8, it became obvious that something important had just happened. This is partly due to the general's decisive role in valiantly repelling Russian forces against all odds in the early days of the invasion, as well as his popularity within the army and among the civilian population. But the general's dismissal is criticized for another, more important reason. This marks a new and decisive stage in the war, in which Zelensky risks making mistakes.

The differences between the actor-turned-politician and his battle-hardened commander were partly culture and personality. After Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, these differences did not matter—indeed, they may even have been a strength of the defending country. In an inspiring example of Ukraine's networked culture, each key member of the resistance focused on his own task. Instead of exercising centralized control, Zelensky continued to be the patriot in chief, demonstrating the country's defiant refusal to concede in the face of Russian aggression. General Zaluzhny, who, in fact, has been fighting Russia for many years, focused on military operations. Only when the Russian and Ukrainian armies were dug in and the front line stalled did these tensions begin to cause harm.

It's no secret that as their relationship deteriorated, the two men also began to disagree about what to do on the battlefield. Zelensky and his administration blamed last year's failed counteroffensive on Zaluzhny. They wanted the Ukrainian army to prepare for a further offensive and demanded that it develop battle plans and take on the unpopular burden of mobilizing additional troops.

The general rejected their arguments. He noted that his caution after the failure of the first assault on Russian positions had saved vital troops and equipment. He argued that he would not be able to plan the next counteroffensive if he did not know what resources he had. He said that it is the responsibility of politicians to mobilize society, and he was right.

In war, it is not uncommon for politicians and soldiers to have a low opinion of each other. What really doomed the relationship between Zelensky and Zaluzhny was the president’s changing views on how the war would determine what kind of country Ukraine should become.

When The Economist first interviewed Zelensky in Kyiv, just weeks after the invasion, he spoke eloquently of how his country was fighting for its destiny: as a Europe-focused democracy, Ukraine, he said, values ​​life more than territories. However, more recently, Zelensky has made it his goal to return the entire occupied territory of Ukraine. As it became clear that this military objective could not be achieved, Zelensky's irritation with his general grew. He and his officials felt a threat to Mr. Zaluzhny's popularity. This was one of the reasons why he sought to centralize power on Bankova.

It was perhaps inevitable that as the war dragged on, the routine of traditional politics would begin to emerge. Unfortunately, politics in Ukraine is not like politics in Washington or Paris. It is an open struggle for resources and power, financed by oligarchs and factions, and these days also by foreign donors. In the political process in the West, ideas often fade into the background; in Ukraine they are often absent altogether.

In such circumstances, the general's departure was correct. In a democracy, the armed forces must obey the politicians. The authority of General Zaluzhny as commander-in-chief had already been fatally undermined by rumors of his resignation. The longer Zelensky seemed too weak to be fired, the more his own credibility suffered. The question is what will remain with the president and the new top military officer of Ukraine, General Syrsky, who was promoted from the post of commander of the country's ground forces.

One of the risks for Zelensky will be discontent in the army caused by the dismissal of a beloved commander. General Syrsky has a reputation for being willing to engage the enemy, even if the costs in men and equipment are high. It is divisive and provokes strong reactions from serving officers. Some praise his professionalism, others say he terrifies his subordinates and rules by fear. He is unlikely to question his president's priorities. When he takes on the top job, he will have to soften his command style and learn to speak truth to power.

The reorganization will also cause disruption as officers move to new positions in the chain of command. It is important that these changes do not reduce Ukraine's combat capability. Soon the country will need a new mobilization, even if General Syrsky uses his troops mainly for defense - as he should do now.

Since General Zaluzhny was a hero in Ukraine, his dismissal will also have political consequences. Zelensky's announcement of his departure was unclear about what he would do next. Those who know the general do not see him as a born politician, but he will not be the first old soldier to be turned by the promises of power. In a country like Ukraine, one oligarch or another will undoubtedly see it as a means of realizing their own ambitions. He should maintain a sense of humility. For his part, Zelensky must be enlightened enough to understand that if he and his administration try to contain the discontent, they will harm the political culture they are trying to save.

The most important question is whether Zelensky can capitalize on the dismissal of General Zaluzhny to refocus his vision of the war. Today, he still publicly stands by his promise that Ukraine will take back every inch of land occupied by Russian forces, even if privately he knows that won't happen soon, if at all. If Ukrainian forces could drive out the Russian occupiers, that would be wonderful. However, barring some completely unexpected change, a war defined by territory is a war that Ukraine cannot win.

Zelensky therefore needs to view this reorganization as a chance to rethink his vision of the war. To survive the long struggle ahead, Ukraine needs to improve its resilience. From a military point of view, this means better air defense and artillery, as well as the ability to carry out routine maintenance. Given the refusal of congressional Republicans to agree to a large package of weapons and money, Ukraine needs even greater domestic capability to produce weapons, especially drones. From an economic perspective, Ukraine needs to attract investment as well as aid, and add value to what it exports. Politically, this means that Zelensky must publicly recommit himself to the war of values.

Ukraine will emerge victorious from this bloody conflict as long as it remains a prosperous, democratic, Western-oriented country. His government needs to focus on making this happen. In this respect there should be no difference between the President and his commanders.