This week, Ukraine’s military experienced a significant leadership shake-up, a decision President Volodymyr Zelenskyy portrayed as a reset for the country’s stagnant war effort.
Zelenskyy replaces Zaluzhny with Oleksandr Syrskyi due to disagreements on conscription and communication. Syrskyi has experience but is criticized for endangering troops. His troops nicknamed him the butcher.
This change comes at a crucial time for Ukraine’s war with Russia, which is nearly entering its third year. While Ukraine initially had a series of successes, such as successfully defending Kyiv and reclaiming some territory in the summer of that year, its progress has since slowed due to Russia’s entrenched position, limited resources, and insufficient manpower and weaponry.
Currently, Ukraine is still awaiting approval from the US Congress for an additional $60 billion in military aid, which is a critical infusion of funding. However, conservatives have expressed reluctance to provide this aid.
All of these issues indicate that replacing the country’s top general is unlikely to lead to significant changes in Ukraine’s current trajectory. Furthermore, there may be elements of Syrskyi’s demonstrated style thus far that could negatively impact soldiers’ morale.
Zelenskyy described the decision to switch commanders-in-chief at this point as being fueled, in part, by a need for “effective changes in the basis of our defense,” so that Ukraine can move forward successfully. In addition to Zelenskyy’s strategic disagreements with Zaluzhny, some experts believe that the president saw the general, who was quite popular among Ukrainians, as a political threat.
The shift to Syrskyi means that Ukraine now has a military commander who is closely aligned with Zelenskyy, including any goals he may have of launching more high-profile assaults in the coming year.
Oleksandr Syrskyi, an experienced Ukrainian military leader, is seen as a potential replacement for Zaluzhny. He led ground troops since 2019 and achieved success in Kyiv and a counteroffensive in Kharkiv in 2022.
Controversy surrounds the pick due to a battle in Bakhmut. Many casualties and Russia’s takeover raise questions about the strategic importance of staying there.
Syrskyi reportedly argued that the losses were acceptable because Ukraine killed far more Russians in the battle for Bakhmut than it lost. Many of his troops disagreed, however, and his strategy has since led some soldiers to give him some less-than-flattering nicknames.
“One hundred percent of my subordinates don’t respect him because they don’t think he values soldiers’ lives,” one high-ranking Ukrainian official told the Washington Post.
Syrskyi’s alignment with Zelenskyy raises concerns among soldiers who fear he may not oppose the president’s potentially costly ambitions as his predecessor would have.
Syrskyi’s statements appear to acknowledge soldiers’ morale, emphasizing the need for “restoration” and investing in technologies like drones. But why is Zelenskyy implementing these changes now?
Zaluzhny is well-known for his involvement in Ukraine’s military operation since the Russian invasion. He is respected and nicknamed the “Iron General.”
US military leaders criticize Ukrainian tactics in the stalled war. Ukrainians are accused of being risk-averse and not utilizing complex approaches. Ukrainian officials disagree with this characterization.
In December, there were drone attacks between Russia and Ukraine. Russia targeted critical infrastructure, civilian facilities, and Ukraine’s defense industrial facilities in an effort to weaken Ukraine’s ability to arm itself. Ukraine has been trying to strengthen its defense industrial base amidst limited support from the international community, including its main military ally, the US. These challenges have left Ukraine with limited options in an ongoing battle where Russia shows no signs of relenting.
On Thursday, Mykhailo Podolyak, a Ukrainian politician and adviser to Zelenskyy’s office, stated on his Telegram channel that the personnel change was necessary to review the tactics employed in the June offensive. According to Podolyak, these tactics did not yield the desired outcome. He also emphasized the importance of preventing stagnation on the front line, which has a negative impact on public sentiment, and the search for new functional and high-tech solutions on the battlefield.
Ukraine’s political landscape is facing conflicts amidst the ongoing war. The division between Zelenskyy and Zaluzhny highlights a significant political rift, revealing some cracks in unity against Russia’s attacks.
Essentially, Zaluzhny’s departure is intended to ensure the maintenance of unity, not only between politicians and the populace, but also among the top levels of Zelenskyy’s administration. The question remains: will Syrskyi be able to turn things around?
Both Zaluzhny and Syrskyi are respected leaders and tacticians. However, the new leadership is unlikely to significantly alter the dynamics of the battlefield, and that may not even be the intention behind the shake-up.
Amidst the increasing presence of drones on the battlefield, Zaluzhny publicly advocated for increased investment in advanced technology. He also called for more aggressive legislation regarding mobilization, which would have expanded conscription to compensate for Ukraine’s battlefield losses and the overextension of its troops.
Zelenskyy and Zaluzhny disagree about the war in Ukraine. Their differing views on mobilization tactics may not improve under Syrskyi’s leadership.
The tension between Zelenskyy and Zaluzhny arises from their contrasting perspectives on soldier sacrifice. This disagreement is also likely to create tension between Zelenskyy and Syrskyi, as the army leadership seeks additional resources that the government is unable to provide.
