Zelenskyy’s political quandary at home
As Ukraine manages internal dynamics, Zelenskyy’s dismissal of Zaluzhny has farreaching effects on military and political fronts, highlighting governance and defense policymaking complexities
By the onset of last autumn, amid the ramifications of the nearly stagnant conflict with Russia over the past two years, Ukraine had begun to manifest two discernible phenomena. Firstly, the nation exhibited signs of weariness and gradual depletion due to the prolonged war.
Secondly, simultaneous indications of a revitalized internal political scene emerged, suggesting a changing political terrain. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent dismissal of commander-in-chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyi has ignited a fresh wave of internal political discourse in Ukraine.
While Zelenskyy contends that politics played no role in the decision, his rationale remains opaque, limited to a vague call for “renewal” within the armed forces. Yet, tensions between the two figures over strategic and tactical matters were widely known, with reports circulating that Zelenskyy had asked for Zaluzhnyi’s resignation. It is evident that military decisions often intersect with political and economic considerations; Zaluzhnyi’s strategic proposal to mobilize half a million troops clashed with his superior’s outlook, who considered this proposal to be impractical and unrealistic.
This incident underscores the intricate relationship between military leadership and broader national interests at play in Ukraine at the moment. As Ukraine navigates these internal dynamics, the repercussions of Zelenskyy’s decision reverberate both within the military hierarchy and across the political landscape, underscoring the complexities inherent in governance and defense policymaking.
Last November, the rift between Zelenskyy and Zaluzhnyi emerged to the surface publicly for the first time after Zaluzhnyi’s interview with The Economist in which he openly hinted at the stalemate in the ongoing conflict. Zelenskyy’s severe discontent with Zaluzhnyi’s interview signaled a discordant note between the two. Zelenskyy perceived it as an indirect attempt to undermine the momentum for increased arms support from Western allies and stray into politics. Zelenskyy’s ousting of the popular Gen. Zaluzhnyi has added a layer of complexity. Despite Gen. Zaluzhnyi’s denial of harboring political aspirations, whispers of a potential future career abound, as evident by the general’s widespread appeal.
However, the appointment of Oleksandr Syrskyi, who has a checkered reputation as the successor, raises questions about the strategic impact on Ukraine’s battlefield dynamics. The shift seems unlikely to bolster Ukraine’s military fortunes, as Gen. Syrskyi’s mixed track record and questionable standing among troops create an uncertain prospect. Paradoxically, the move may also not yield significant political dividends for Zelenskyy. While Gen. Syrskyi is the president’s close confidant, his perceived lack of political ambition is considered an “added benefit.” Gen. Zaluzhnyi’s exit from the limelight shields him from future military setbacks and prompts further scrutiny of Zelenskyy’s decisionmaking. The episode, therefore, not only reshapes the military hierarchy but also fuels speculation about Zelenskyy’s tolerance for scrutiny and the potential ramifications for Ukraine’s political landscape.
GEOPOLITICAL GAMBIT
In the chessboard of geopolitical strategy, Zalunznyi’s dismissal has emerged as a controversial move amid Ukraine’s struggle to stem Russia’s continued advance. Despite Russia’s setbacks in 2022, recent months have witnessed a reversal of fortunes, with Moscow seizing the initiative on the battlefield. Following Russia’s resurgence on the battlefield, Ukraine finds itself struggling to maintain its footing amid escalating hostilities.
Ukraine’s ambitious counteroffensive, launched in June 2023 to reclaim territories in the south and east, has faltered, encouraging Russia’s territorial ambitions. The capture of Mariinka and ongoing advances toward Avdiivka and Kupiansk underscore the formidable challenges facing Ukrainian forces. Faced with mounting casualties and diminishing prospects of victory, Zaluzhnyi floated the contentious proposal of mobilizing up to 500,000 troops. However, his discord with Zelenskyy over the mobilization plans eventually resulted in his departure. Obviously, the Zalunznyi episode has added another layer of uncertainty to an already volatile situation. Moreover, shifting dynamics in Washington have also shadowed Kyiv’s prospects, signaling a potential decline in international support.
Western capitals are expressing unease and the removal may work as a pretext for U.S. Republicans to block the $60 billion aid package, currently mired in domestic wrangling. The intricacies of internal politics take precedence, overshadowing the international implications of Zaluzhnyi’s departure. As the spotlight shifts, questions linger about Zelenskyy’s willingness to face critique on his decisions. Despite the absence of calls for elections, typical in peacetime, criticism started emerging after Zaluzhnyi’s exit, which added a political headache for Zelenskyy. But a more significant challenge looms in the war’s uncertain trajectory. Despite projecting resolve, Ukraine’s path to victory over Russia’s annexation remains elusive.
The Ukraine conflict is now overshadowed by distractions, such as Israel’s actions in Gaza, backed by the Biden administration. The specter of a Trump reelection raises the stakes, as his pledge to swiftly end the war could intensify pressure on Ukraine. Zelenskyy faces not only immediate political tests but also the continued puzzle of securing Ukraine’s future amid shifting global dynamics. In this highstakes game of brinkmanship, Zelenskyy’s ability to navigate the shifting sands of geopolitics will determine its future trajectory.