At the highest levels of warfare, the most vital commodity is not guns and ammunition, but trust
Dominic Nicholls, ASSOCIATE EDITOR (DEFENCE)
8 February 2024
National leaders often fall out with their military chiefs in times of war, but that does not always lead to a dismissal.
In 2011, after a perceived blurring of the military and political agendas during the Libya crisis, then prime minister David Cameron slapped down General Sir David Richards, his chief of the defence staff, with the admonishment: “You do the fighting, I’ll do the talking”.
Richards survived. General Valery Zaluzhny, the head of Ukraine’s armed forces until Thursday night, has not, following a similarly bruising encounter with his country’s political leader.
Forget guns and ammunition, at the highest levels of warfare trust is the most vital commodity.
So it is in Ukraine right now.
It will help that the parting of ways with Gen Zaluzhny appears to be an amicable divorce. After all, he and President Volodymyr Zelensky were very pointedly pictured smiling together.
But has Mr Zelensky just pulled off a masterstroke or made a calamitous mistake? To boost Ukraine’s fortunes the reshuffle must increase trust in three areas.
First, that trust that is necessary between a national leader and the head of the armed forces.
The move to dismiss Gen Zaluzhny follows months if not years of a deteriorating relationship between the two men.
Despite protestations to the contrary, the military chief was thought to have political ambition; one, tellingly – and perhaps fatally – in a different direction from President Zelensky.
After the establishment by Gen Zaluzhny of a charitable foundation – often seen in Ukraine as a precursor to a career in politics – hiding any such desire proved almost impossible.
Maintaining the closest working relationship in an environment of political suspicion and possible future challenge is an almost impossible task.
The second key relationship that can be made or broken by trust (or a lack of it) is between the commander-in-chief of a military force and the men and women who have to fight and possibly die on the orders that follow from the top.
Whether newly appointed General Oleksandr Syrsky can revitalise the military effort is already the focus of much debate.
What is not in doubt is that a new style of battlefield management is expected.
Gen Syrsky is known for his rigid style, with a keen eye for detail and preparation.
Certainly, as head of Ukraine’s ground forces, his name was attached to the successful defence of Kyiv in the first months of the war and for forcing Russia’s pell-mell retreat from the north-east of the country later in 2022.
However, he has also attracted criticism from rank-and-file soldiers for his command of the fight over Bakhmut. Many soldiers felt he insisted the blasted shell of that eastern city be held for longer than it was efficient to do so; that the juice – in terms of destroying Russian men and materiel – was not worth the squeeze demanded from Ukraine’s exhausted troops.
on the battlefield seems to stagnate.
Gen Zaluzhny was seen by some Western military chiefs as too guarded in his dealings with friends. He was accused of holding too close to himself his military plans. Some supporters felt that, with all the military help they were offering (plus the ever-present concern over escalating Russia to a possible nuclear threshold), they deserved more of a view about how their weapons would be used.
His relationship with General Mark Milley, the senior military figure in the US, was understood to be stiff and better conducted through subordinates. That was a mistake.
However, Ukraine’s problems in its relations with the West go far deeper than personal relationships. Even if Syrsky’s elevation improves ties with the Pentagon, it will not lift the Republican party’s blocking or slowing of US aid to Kyiv.
There is one other possible reason for the timing of Gen Zaluzhny’s sacking: politics.
As Ukraine’s 2023’s counter-offensive showed, when the fighting starts in earnest again there is no guarantee Kyiv’s forces will have any great success. That will draw intense political heat upon Mr Zelensky, from within his country as much as from outside.
If that is the case, or, conversely, if Ukraine achieves stunning breakthroughs, the relationship between the political and the military leaders will need to be as strong as it possibly can be to withstand the barrage of demands and expectations.
No major battlefield moves are expected for months, from Russia or Ukraine.
Time, then, for the president and his new military chief to cement their relationship before it, and they, are subjected to the furnace of combat once again.
These are two men who have both proved their greatness. There must be no recriminations. At least not until after the putinaZi horde has been crushed.
Everyone must now get fully behind Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrsky in his daunting task.
The war isn’t going well. But that is not the fault of these men, the ZSU or Ukraine as a people. It is because all the allies failed. Only 20% of what Gen. Zaluzhnyi requested actually arrived. Shame on all of them.
Now that tovarish Trumpkov has succeeded in the task he was set: to end the U.S.’s status as Ukraine’s most vital ally, what happens next?
One brave country should send ground troops to shame the rest into acting.
Jt wasn’t the fault of Zaluzhny, neither. But rather the failure of Ze,ensky and Kuleba to convince Nato members of the need for more deliveries plus boosting arm production. Zelensky has also kicked the can of higher mobilisation down the road far too long. Hell, he didn’t even appoint replacements for alm the recruitment officials he himself had fired last year! The consequences for the fighting units are nothing but disastrous.
Exchanging leadership won’t solve any problem harming the AFU now. It’s an act of despair by someone who is aplarently cracking up under immense pressure. But wishful thinking ain’t a solution. If Zelensky doesn’t have better ideas about how to win this war, but is more concerned about a potential challenger in the next election instead (what a crazy idea, in this dire situation!), he needs to step down.
POLITICUSUSA:
Jason Easley
Jimmy Kimmel pointed out how Tucker Carlson is using Russian propaganda to defend his interview with Putin.
Kimmel said, “Tucker Carlson still doesn’t have a job. He is in Moscow. House hunting, I hope. But no, actually, Tucker is there to interview Vladimir Putin, which is so overtly ridiculous. He put out a preemptive video to nervously “Explain” why he’s doing this. Vladimir Putin is a murderer and a war criminal who hates America. He hates everything America stands for. He is a liar and a propagandist, but Tuck thinks we just need to hear him out, “Not a single Western journalist has bothered to interview the president of the other country involved in this conflict, Vladimir Putin.”
Kimmel added, “I love, “Involved in this conflict.” That’s like saying that in Jaws, the great white shark was “Involved in the biting.” It takes two to be eaten.”
Why did one of the most direct callouts of what Tucker Carlson is doing come from a late-night comedian instead of from the entire American mainstream corporate media?
Every media outlet should condemn what Tucker Carlson did and commit to not giving his Putin interview a second of airtime so that Putin can spread his lies and misinformation in a bid to weaken and exploit political divisions in the United States.
Tucker Carlson is a propagandist for Putin, and it is time that the United States people told Russia that they can keep Carlson and not to send him back.
“Why did one of the most direct callouts of what Tucker Carlson is doing come from a late-night comedian instead of from the entire American mainstream corporate media?”
My thoughts exactly.
I’d also like to see Jon Stewart’s response. I read he will come back to the Daily Show.
3 points debunked:
1) Who cares about the next election now and the possible candidates? Ukraine has much bigger problems at hand!
2) Exchanging the AFU head with someone who’s apparently less popular won’t improve the relationship to the troops or their motivation. Quite to the contrary.
3) The exchange generated a single headline in the New York Times today, below several stories about the Gsza war. It would have been a better idea to replace the apparently totally ineffective Ukrainian ambassador to the US with someone more active in public relations.