Strategic divergence. Why the West doesn’t want Zaluzhny to resign

Washington and London did not react to the fact that Zelensky wanted to dismiss Zaluzhny. They responded to the reason for the resignation

There has been a wave of publications in Western media about problems in relations between the top political and military leadership of Ukraine. The reason, of course, was the story of how Vladimir Zelensky decided to remove Valery Zaluzhny from the post of commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and then changed his mind. But even though the resignation did not take place, the problems in the relationship did not go away. And many media focus on this. Just look at the headlines of some publications. The New York Times: “The latest challenge for Ukraine is growing tensions between top leaders.” The Economist: “The feud between the Ukrainian president and the army commander-in-chief is gaining momentum.” The Spectator: “Zelensky’s rivalry with Zaluzhny is bad news for Ukraine.”

Western “veto”

In principle, when tensions between the political and military leadership rise, this problem needs to be addressed. And the standard way out is the resignation of the military leadership. “The president has the right to change a commander whom he no longer trusts: the subordination of the military to civilian leadership is the cornerstone of democracy,” The Economist emphasizes.

The magazine notes that it is not uncommon for civilian leaders to change commanders, even senior ones, during war. Sometimes this is due to generals' insubordination, other times they are fired for poor performance and military mistakes. Military history is also replete with cases of commanders being released for less noble reasons. Generals are often heroic and courageous figures, eclipsing their political leaders through either military success, self-promotion, or both. This breeds envy and resentment, The Economist emphasizes, and provides a number of examples of all these options from American, British and Israeli history.

In any case, whatever Zelensky’s motives, an axiom of democracy is the right of the country’s civilian leader to dismiss the military commander. And in the current situation, it looks strange that Zelensky suddenly changed his mind.

Moreover, it seems that Western partners played a key role in this. For example, The Times writes, citing sources close to Zaluzhny, that after Zaluzhny announced to his deputies that Zelensky had fired him, international partners, including the United States and Great Britain, expressed their concern, and under their pressure Zelensky “was forced to reverse my decision.” Interlocutors of BBC News Ukraine in the Ukrainian government spoke about the same thing: “Kyiv’s Western partners intervened in the situation and expressed strong rejection of Zaluzhny’s resignation.”

Apparently, Washington and London used not only persuasion, but also more serious arguments to force Bankovaya to abandon a decision that they considered crazy. British political scientist Mark Galeotti said in The Spectator on the morning of January 30: “A senior European diplomat dealing with the Ukrainian issue wrote to me last night in horror and bewilderment that their embassy in Kyiv announced a military reshuffle yesterday. This morning they reported that “Bankovaya seems to have come to its senses.”

Ukraine is now completely dependent on Western military and financial assistance. And it is not surprising that the West uses this fact as a basis to veto some of Bankova’s decisions. The question is different: why did the West need to force Zelensky to leave Zaluzhny in his post, despite the fact that relations in this tandem are very far from ideal?

Trivial arguments

There are a few trivial arguments that seem plausible. However, they are not weighty or convincing enough.

The first argument is, of course, the Kremlin’s gain from any quarrels within the Ukrainian leadership. For example, The Economist stated that Russian propagandists gleefully hurled ridicule at Ukraine, and quoted Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the Kremlin mouthpiece Russia Today: “Whether Zaluzhny was removed or not, the mess on the farm is good for us.” And an article in The Guardian about Zelensky’s attempt to fire Zaluzhny ends with the opinion of Orysia Lutsevich, an expert at the British think tank Chatham House: “Given Russia’s own attempts to destabilize Ukrainian unity from within, this kind of attack on Zaluzhny plays into the hands of the enemy.”

But, as we see, any tension between the political and military leadership of Ukraine brings joy to the Kremlin. Therefore, if we follow this logic straightforwardly, then Zaluzhny needs to be removed precisely so that the Kremlin will no longer have any grounds for joy.

Another trivial argument is Zaluzhny’s resignation “at the wrong time,” since quarrels in the Ukrainian leadership could weaken support for Ukraine from Western public opinion. The Guardian emphasizes that now “the most acute crisis in Ukraine” is not on the battlefield, but in the US Congress, which cannot approve a military aid package worth $61 billion. The Economist also notes that rumors about Zaluzhny’s resignation “have appeared at a critical moment,” when Ukraine “faces uncertainty about the degree of foreign support it can count on. The battle over the future of General Zaluzhny is unlikely to make the renewal of funding more likely, since the commander is highly regarded in the West.”

All this is, of course, correct, but a similar objection can be raised here. For Western public opinion, the personalities of the generals are secondary; it is important for them that Ukraine demonstrates internal unity and the will to win. In this regard, what harms us most is the headlines of articles in Western media that there is growing enmity between the president and the top general in Ukraine. It would be better if there were headlines like “Zelensky appointed a new general to lead the Ukrainian army to victory.”

Another argument from the same series is the fear of shocks in Ukraine in the event of Zaluzhny’s resignation. “If replacing the general is seen as a purely political, rather than military, necessity, Mr. Zelensky may face a negative reaction not only from opposition politicians, but also from the public, which, as polls show, has the greatest respect for General Zaluzhny,” says The New York Times.

However, a failed resignation is also a source of turmoil. “Members of the Ukrainian parliament say confusion at the top is already spreading throughout the Ukrainian armed forces, affecting the morale of the rank and file and the work of senior officers with colleagues in the allied armed forces. Uncertainty remains over whether the president supports General Zaluzhny's orders, undermining confidence in the chain of command,” the same New York Times article said.

Undoubtedly, Western partners are aware of this problem. However, they considered it a lesser evil than Zaluzhny’s resignation. Why?

Strategic motive

To answer this question, we must first find out the reason for the disagreements between Zelensky and Zaluzhny. Let's leave political jealousy and possible personal antipathies aside. The two of them have fundamentally different visions of future strategy.

Let us recall that a large wave of rumors about Zaluzhny’s possible resignation arose back in November, when The Economist published an article “The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on how to win the war,” which Bankova did not like. Deputy head of the OP Igor Zhovkva said on the telethon that Zaluzhny’s article allegedly caused “panic” among international partners. “I received a call from one of the heads of the [partner countries’] leaders’ offices, and they asked in a panic: “What should I report to my leader? Are you really at a dead end?” Is this the effect we wanted to achieve with this article?” - Zhovkva said.

Since then, things have only gotten worse. Disagreements intensified. And when there is no mutual understanding about strategy, then, of course, personal antipathy flourishes.

And now the reason for Zelensky’s seemingly spontaneous and groundless personnel decision was precisely disagreements about strategy.

“According to senior officers, Valery Zaluzhny was summoned to a personal meeting with Zelensky on Monday. There, the general told the president's advisers that their assessment of the military situation was more positive than realistic. Then, according to three sources, he was asked to resign. When he refused, Zelensky said he would sign a decree dismissing him,” says The Times.

One can only guess what Zaluzhny meant when he called Bankova’s military calculations “more positive than realistic.” The important thing is that it was this discrepancy that became the “last straw.”

And Washington and London, in turn, did not react to the fact that Zelensky wanted to dismiss Zaluzhny. They reacted precisely to the reason for the resignation.

Because Zaluzhny’s strategy is the strategy of the West. As The Financial Times notes, “replacing Zaluzhny could unnerve Ukraine’s Western partners, including military officials who have worked closely with the general over the past two years to develop combat strategy.”

This does not mean, of course, that there is always perfect mutual understanding between Zaluzhny and Western commanders. There must have been serious arguments between them. But these were discussions between experts in military affairs, and in these disputes specific decisions were born, which were then approved by Western presidents and prime ministers.

One can understand what our Western friends are afraid of now. They are afraid that after Zaluzhny’s resignation, his place will be taken by a person who will promote plans that are “more positive than realistic.” Moreover, these fears are confirmed by the list of possible successors: the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Moscow Region, Kirill Budanov, and the commander of the Ground Forces, Alexander Syrsky. “Both are considered close to the presidential team,” The Economist emphasizes and notes that Budanov has no experience in commanding large troops. And Syrsky, The Economist recalls, led “a perhaps pointless defense of the small town of Bakhmut,” while “fierce debates over military strategy, including a dispute over Bakhmut, took place between the presidential palace and the general staff.”

To summarize, we can say that the problem is much deeper than just poor personal relations between Zelensky and Zaluzhny. The discrepancy here is strategic, and if Zaluzhny resigns, it will not disappear, but, on the contrary, will worsen.

What to expect next

There are two options for the development of events: “positive and realistic.” The military is counting on something positive. The Times quotes the words of “the general’s confidant” Zaluzhny: “Zelensky must understand that the military trusts Zaluzhny, and if the president wants the military to trust him, he must learn to trust Zaluzhny. Advisers close to Zelensky poured him a warm bath, outside of which it is difficult to see the realities of the front.” Expecting Zelensky to listen to the military and not his advisers is, of course, a wish that is “more positive than realistic.”

The “realistic” option is that everything will be as it is, or worse. But from the point of view of the West, this is still better than if Bankovaya begins to command the Armed Forces of Ukraine itself during the war.