The Ukrainian government had informed the White House about Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to dismiss Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Washington Post reported on 2 February with reference to two sources.
Source: European Pravda with reference to The Washington Post
Details: WP stated that the White House officials had not supported this decision but did not object either, recognizing this step as “the president’s sovereign choice”.
Quote: “The early warning also provided the White House an opportunity to urge Zelensky to reconsider the pivotal decision — even though it decided against doing so.”
The Washington Post adds with reference to people familiar with Zelenskyy’s thinking that he may postpone the decision about the dismissal of Zaluzhnyi indefinitely, though “that appeared unlikely”.
An overly popular general who takes all the credit for victory and blames all the losses on those pesky politicians, you say?
Can’t imagine why he’d get the boot from a military still struggling with corruption.
Conjecture aside, does Commander in Chief mean the same thing to the Ukrainian military that it means to the American?
Seems like a bad idea to not have your chief executive be able to give direct orders, but maybe I’m just not understanding their idea of the chain of command.
It could be the overly popular and ambitious general scenario, or it could be the scenario of the meddling politician who is incompetent in military matters causing major losses of men and materiel. History has examples of both.
Unfortunately, the lack of progress in the war naturally leads to internal frustration and conflict. The West could certainly help if we would stop using Ukraine military aid as a political football.