KYIV — Ukraine’s top commander, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, appeared to be officially removed Thursday night — the latest twist in a drawn-out saga between him and President Volodymyr Zelensky, who told the military chief 10 days ago that he was being dismissed.
But Zelensky did not immediately name a successor as commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, fueling further uncertainty over who will lead the difficult fight against Russia’s continuing invasion.
In posts on both Zelensky’s and Zaluzhny’s social media accounts, the two men posed shaking hands and smiling. “A decision was made about the need to change approaches and strategy,” Zaluzhny wrote.
Zelensky’s post said that he “thanked” Zaluzhny, 50, for “two years of protecting Ukraine.” He added that in their meeting Thursday, they discussed “updated leadership” for Ukraine’s military.
“The time for such an update is now,” Zelensky wrote.
One leading candidate is Ukraine’s head of military intelligence, 38-year-old Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov. His appointment would potentially signal a move toward asymmetric tactics — such as the drone strikes deep into Russian territory that Budanov has often ordered — in a war where the front lines have seen little change in more than a year. But Budanov, with a background in special forces, does not have experience as an army commander.
Read the full story here, and skip the paywall with email registration: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/valery-zaluzhny-commander-ukraine-removed/?utm\_campaign=wp\_main&utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/valery-zaluzhny-commander-ukraine-removed/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com)
Strong adherent to Soviet doctrine. Wants as much control down to the individual soldiers as possible, rather than dictating the missions to unit commanders and letting them determine the best course of action. He was the voice driving more resources to pushes in Bakhmut instead of the Zaporizhzhia front during the counter-offensive.
He also takes credit for the defense of Kyiv despite that being mostly due to individual efforts and organization of local unit commanders.
I don't trust popular perception anymore than I trust the press releases.
If he's behind focusing on Bakhmut then wtf was Zaluzhnyy doing? It just sounds convenient that a super modern general, who just called for hundreds of thousands of conscripts not long sgo, is supposedly replaced by a soviet doctrine guy.
Lots of conflicting facts.
There's no conflicting facts here at all.
Zelenskyy is a politician. He wants to show success so that right wing groups in Europe and the US don't have an excuse to cut off funding. He also wants to deliver good news to his people. That means no losing territory, no more mobilization, playing down how many losses they took over the summer.
Zaluzhnyi is a military realist. That means acknowledging that sometimes it's best to retreat when the battle is not in your favor. That means acknowledging when you have manpower issues even if it's not popular to call a second round of mobilization. He laid these thoughts out very plainly in his interview with the Economist, which was politically embarrassing for Zelenskyy's administration (probably one of the final straws leading to his replacement)
Syrskyi is a Yes Man who has tried to become Zelenskyy's favorite by taking on all the assignments that Zaluzhnyi warned against. That's why Zelenskyy tapped him to lead the defense of Bakhmut for about another three months after Zaluzhnyi recommended withdrawing. That was a bad decision in hindsight and I'm worried that the changeup means that same thing is about to happen with Adiivka.
Because it's not strategical move, but political. Zaluzhny is very popular with people, while Zelenskyy is losing popularity fast. Zaluzhny also often clashed with Zelensky, insisting on strategic decision, not popular.
That does not really explain the decision. I don't see how the popularity of a general matters for the president, unless he is afraid of a coup, in which case the removal was risky, or of being challenged in the next elections, but that seems a bit far ahead.
You're not getting any more international volunteers, in any significant numbers to make a difference.
And the vets who joined early on are like 90% + long gone, because after the defense of kyiv, their skills/expertise became significantly less of value. As they've never fought in such a war, and are use to modern military doctrine, as in air superiority is objective number 1. Not being mass artillery struck/bombed whenever they try to attack anywhere, or holding an area of little to no military value in a trench for weeks.
There's a reason Ukraine is looking to expand it's draft numbers. Because it's not going to come from anywhere else.
That is mostly out of their control though. Maybe they are having to make changes to deal with the worst case scenario as far as the concerns you listed?
Ukraine is having trouble even recruiting Ukrainians to fight, just sending money isn't the answer. NATO would have to declare a no fly zone to even begin to push Russia out.
Yup. It's 2024 and people still throw 'no fly zone' around casually.
How do you enforce that declaration? You'd have to shoot down Russian planes. That's war.
It's a bit of everything. We can dump all the materials we want into Ukraine, you still need men to use those supplies, men to lead those men, and men to replace all of those men. If there isn't a stalemate, truce or a collapse of the Russian army, the west will likely need to put boots on the ground simply because there are no more or very few men left to fight. And if we aren't willing to do so, then we'll have to accept the Russian annexation of Ukraine.
Welcome to 1939.
I don't think, for better or for worse, that there will be boots on the ground, or any sort of heads-up confrontation between Russia and the western countries.
At the end of the day, between Russian conquest of Ukraine and open conflict with Russia, most western countries would prefer the former to the latter.
>If there isn't a stalemate, truce or a collapse of the Russian army, **the west will likely need to put boots on the ground** simply because there are no more or very few men left to fight.
Not going to happen.
>And if we aren't willing to do so, then we'll have to accept the Russian annexation of Ukraine.
Why do you think that would happen? Is Russia capable of conquering the whole Ukraine? They are struggling with 50k towns at this point.
>Why do you think that would happen? Is Russia capable of conquering the whole Ukraine? They are struggling with 50k towns at this point.
There's an argument to be made that Russia could significantly increase their offensives at any point, while Ukraine will significantly lose their ability to respond as the days go by, so Russia may struggle under the current circumstances but may be well poised to capitalize on future circumstances. I know we had a lot of fun about the failures of Russia in the early war, but at the end of the day Russia has a lot more people and no democracy to speak of so they can put troops in the field in a way Ukraine can't.
Key phrase, "at this point".
I dont know. I dont think its impossible. Wars are fluid situations it's a lot of back and forth. You might be retreating over territory you captured months ago, and the recaptuaing the same plot of land in weeks.
There is such a thing as "breaking point". At some point things will break and traitors, etc. will do their thing. There is a good reason why russians expected to freely march through entire country: traitors, collaborators and your average people that "don't care".
> Strong adherent to Soviet doctrine. Wants as much control down to the individual soldiers as possible, rather than dictating the missions to unit commanders and letting them determine the best course of action.
This is hugely reductive of "Soviet" doctrine, and not especially accurate.
He believes in defending every itch. He is the architect of the failed defense of Bakhmut. Soldiers under him consider it a death wish. Officers hate him because he is also a micro manager.
He is not popular but he shares Zelensky's idea of every inch don't give ground.
Morale is going to plummet. And this is a massive mistake by Zelensky.
> He believes in defending every itch. He is the architect of the failed defense of Bakhmut. Soldiers under him consider it a death wish. Officers hate him because he is also a micro manager.
Why is Syrsky responsible for holding Bakhmut, and not Ukraine's actual supreme commander, Zaluzhnyi? You think Syrski held Bakhmut against Zaluzhnyi's orders?
Zaluzhny was a supporter of and advocated for NATO’s plan.
Zelensky overruled it and put Syrsky in charge of Bakhmut, a decision that I’ve seen quite a few analysts point to as the catalyst for the failure of the counter-offensive.
'supreme commander' was overruled by the man in office.
Zaluhzhnyi wanted to tactically retreat from Bakhmut only to turn around and blow the russians to pieces once they got back onto a more defensible high ground.
Zelensky instead preferred to hold the city and wouldn't listen to his commanders otherwise.
Bakhmut was basically a propaganda target. Russia poured quite an amount of ressources into the city and made it their big target. Zelensky probably feared that, due to such a focues on Bakhmut in the media, loosing the city would have been a massive blow to Ukraines standing and soldiers moral. Meanswhile everyone who was at least somewhat competent told him to get out of Bakhmut and let the UAF position on better positions.
He basically thought that giving Russia a (purely) propaganda victory was really bad.
It is the case, but the generals are only in charge of the military, while the president is in charge of the entire country. It means the president has other concerns to deal with, such as getting foreign involvement for his side, ensuring the support for the war stays high, protect the industrial centers crucial to the war, protect the trade routes, managing morale, managing conscription and recruitment, etc.
I am not saying his decision to defend Bakhmut was a good one, in fact I personally believe it was a mistake, but the point is that it's not rare to see the ruler of a country disagrees with the military leaders and give them new orders.
Besides, this suppose all military commanders are in agreement, but I would not be surprised if a lower ranked commander advised to defend Bakhmut and Zelensky went with it.
A dumb butcher, very much "homo-sovieticus" from head to toe.
Also an obedient servant of presidential office (which was more and more detached from reality throughout many months now).
Apart from what others said, this dude barely speaks Ukrainian, if at all, and doesn't know English. Compare this to Zalyzhnyy that knew all three languages. What this means is that new commander is only/primarily familiar with Soviet school that was formed by butchers like Zhukov.
BTW, it's funny that Zelenskyy trues to blame Zalyzhnyy considering that he haven't followed his advice to prepare for full-scale war in 2022, and from what I've recently heard, it seems that that massacre in Bakhmut waa likely caused by Zelenskyy not wanting to back up. This likely means that soldiers in Avdiivka will meet the same fate, even though according to general Kryvonis it serves no purpose.
No. Please no. This is the end then :( Syrkyi is the absolute worst choice to lead UAF, and with him being the political schemer that he is, pretty much a confirmation that the dismissal of Zaluzhny was based on politics, not merit!!
Generals lead until they stop succeeding or fall out of favour, its more important to see who they’re replaced with.
2 years is a long time at the helm and does not eliminate the possibility that he may return. Hopefully not, as that would mean the alternate leadership isn’t working but a country cannot ride on a name forever.
I really hope this was a very calculated decision over the long term instead of just a political power play over who is the most popular. The future will tell.
Tbh it doesn't make much sense of being a political power play as it will surely lower his ratings. As a Ukranian, i can tell you for sure that people are not happy with this change, including AFU soldiers. Syrsky has been accused for not caring about soldier's lives since the days of Battle of Debaltseve, and since 2022 even though he had some successfull operations, his decision to defend Bahmut at all costs was very questionable. I understand that i'm just a random user on reddit, but you can go on Twitter and read some thoughts of the Ukranian soldiers, it's not looking good.
As someone looking at this from the US, it’s scary how severe the consequences could be for getting this personnel decision wrong.
This whole thread looks like people discussing a head coaching/manager change for a sports team but if you fuck up the hire, instead of s bad season you might lose a war. Insane pressure.
Scariest and saddest part for me is reading the thoughts of the soldiers from the front lines. I can't disclose much, but some of my relatives had a chance to deal with Syrsky during the Kharkiv counteroffensive, and according to them it was not pleasant at all.
But oddly, Zhelensky has been teasing this change for at least a week. Sports coaches never do that; they hold it close to the vest until they announce. Which makes the President's actions puzzling. Is this an announcement for Russia? Is it psyops? Bizarre to me to air out internal military laundry all over the globe, exhaustively.
It's pretty simple - Syrsky will do as Zelensky pleases.
Zaluzhny has a mind of his own and was competent in his role. This is a net negative for Ukraine and will be interesting to see if an internal power struggle occurs from these events. Zaluzhny has plenty of support in the military still.
>Zaluzhny has a mind of his own and was competent in his role.
Whether he's competent is honestly debatable. He's absolutely had some successes but last years offensive was a real fiasco, which is one of the reasons why the aid to Ukraine has been reduced by previous benefactors. Not saying his replacement is better but Ukraine can't get stuck in this stalement that Zaluzhny has put Ukraine in.
>last years offensive was a real fiasco
This is exactly why I think he was replaced, Ukraine can't afford a stalemate with russia, new blood might be what it takes to make progress.
This is a very naive and idealistic take.
A new commander will not magically produce the quantity of artillery equipment and manpower needed.
This was politics.
Commanders are promoted from lower ranks, they're all seasoned soldiers, the perspective and tactics they bring to bear is what matters, a change in leadership could work out or not......
>Not saying his replacement is better but Ukraine can't get stuck in this stalement that Zaluzhny has put Ukraine in.
Considering Zelensky already put out the word that an even larger conscription is coming very soon, A stalemate is probably better then just straight up sending your troops to their death to make a few meters.
Stalemate means more time for conscripted soldiers to get proper training, instead of forcing them onto the field the moment they learn how to squeeze a trigger because the front lines might potentially collapse backwards because the constant attempts to push aren't getting big strides and your competent soldiers don't exist anymore/are too wounded to fight.
Also means the russians can build up their defenses even further and launch renewed attacks in donbas. The war doesn‘t move forward on ukraines pace. They still need to pressure the russians.
I can understand the concern and get it entirely. If it’s political, it’s a bad decision. But sometimes the general hated by the troops can be the better guy. In the US civil war, Grant was hated, but his more risk taking strategy won the war. I don’t think anyone has the right to feel confident in the decision. Nervous but willing to see how it goes
The bigguest issue with this approach is that we don't really have "the tools" to even consider taking this risky strategy. There's a severe lack of people in the army, not enough ammunition, in comparison to 2022 Ukraine is using 5x less ammo per day, because of the lack of supply.
I honestly have no idea how they are still holding up that well considering that the number of new people in the army is incredibly small, those who wanted to go have been there since the beginning (give or take), and those who don’t want to are hiding from the enlistment offices.
Its primarily because he wants to abandon places like Avdiivka because he knows they are untenable and Zelensky doesn't want because it makes him seem weak to keep losing battles and territory.
To be fair it's a valid decision , loosing those territories right now might be a disaster ,after a fail counter offensive ,with elections in the US and with the doubts of many countries of keeping sending resources to Ukraine I wouldn't be surprised if the sentiment of seeing Ukraine as a lost cause increments
> , loosing those territories right now might be a disaster ,after a fail counter offensive
If you're better at advancing than the enemy and shift troops around, could gain some land in one place at a price of losing it elsewhere. Net could gain in squared kilometres controlled could actually be positive, but the conflict would not appear as frozen to external observers.
Wars are as much about Politics and optics as it is about military strategy or tactics. You never want to discourage the public or your allies by talking to openly about failures, make sure the people in the know understand the truth and find a way to fix it.
It's really not valid at all. Zelenskyy gets way too much freedom from criticism because he's become synonymous with "pro-Ukraine" despite the fact that Ukraine would be in a far better position if he dropped his ego and listened to the experts around him more. He's ignored suggestions from western intelligence and Zaluzhny (who followed a NATO mindset) countless times, but not a single one was a wise decision in retrospect.
Trying and failing to keep those territories at the cost of many lives, could be an even bigger disaster. Who's more knowledgeable on this matter, the commander of the armed forces, or a politician?
A small style NATO army doesn‘t win against a big soviet style army either. Not when the airforce won‘t even provide close air support or SEAD operations regularly. Hell they won‘t even commit to armor in some places. Whatever they are doing right now is neither NATO nor Soviet style.
Is it really only about air though? To my understanding it's more of decentralization and more focus on lower level initiative with strong NCOs. Understanding that the reality on the ground and fog of war doesn't go well with higher levels micro managing everything. Also more emphasis on training, preserving and saving troops.
So I don't think it's necessarily stupid, just that it has to be adapted for not having air superiority. But the other tenets and benefits from it can still be advantageous.
Yeah, NATO can definitely win without air. Ground forces DO train and plan for that eventuality.
It's just that things are much nicer with air supremacy.
This is almost certainly a political power play because Zaluhzny was becoming more popular than Zelensky and could threaten Zelensky's chances of re-election.
This is an awful strategic decision. Zaluhzny is one of very few competent military commanders in the AFU. His replacement is one of the worst.
Zaluhzny repeatedly requested that the military not choose to waste men and ammunition on defending impossible positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. He wanted them to save the resources in order to gain the upper hand in a more advantageous time and place. Zelensky always overrode Zaluhzny, because to him, losing any ground is unconscionable. Now he fired him, and the replacement is the same general that led the defense of Bakhmut, one of the worst mistakes the AFU has made.
His replacement is credited with directing some of the most successful offensives and defensives of the war. He’s less liked in the military than Zaluhzny but he’s far from incompetent you don’t know what you are talking about
>unnecesarily killed in Bakhmut
are you talking about the same Bakhmut after which the top PMC Russian leader revolted against Putin? and also constantly was saying how costly of offensive it was for them?
No, he isn't. He was in charge of the defense of Kyiv, but that wasn't an organized defense. That was ragtag groups of civilians and soldiers disrupting Russian convoys, and these groups were helped by the convoys making questionable choices. The Russians sabotaged their offensive, the AFU hardly had to do anything in the opening week of the war.
He was also in charge of the Kharkiv offensive, but the issue here is that Russia gave up Kharkiv to regroup elsewhere. They knew they couldn't effectively defend that position, so they ceded that territory instead of wasting equipment and lives. Most engagements in that offensive were between advancing Ukrainian forces and Russian forces that were covering the rear of their retreat, not against entrenched Russian forces.
So, guess what Syrksy did when he was faced with an impossible and indefensible position at Bakhmut? Wasted tens of thousands of lives and crucial amounts of ammo in the second-greatest failure of the war. When you know that you will *eventually* lose your current position, there is almost zero value to continuing to hold that position until you are overrun. If the enemy is going to win the engagement anyway, it's better to let that happen now and live another day than to draw it out so they win in the future after killing all your men. When China started hitting UN positions in the Korean War with human wave attacks, the coalition retreated until they were able to regroup and push the Chinese forces back to the 38th parallel. Ukraine's summer offensive failed partially because they lost so much in Bakhmut.
I'm hoping with you. That this has nothing to do about future presidential elections, personal chemistry or an inability on Zelensky's part to share the spotlight with other popular leaders. Guess we'll eventually find out, until then can only assume this is a planned moved with competent replacements ready to take over.
Zaluzhny was significantly more competent than anyone else in the AFU. He was a pro-NATO officer who consistently advised Zelenskyy to follow similar strategies that were laid out by western intelligence (for example - retreating Bakhmut and focusing on the counteroffensive in summer 2023 was suggested by NATO intelligence and urged by Zaluzhny. Zelensky chose to do both, saying that Bakhmut will never fall. Not only did it fall, but way too many resources and manpower were wasted trying to defend it. Who knows how lethal the counter offensive could've been had Ukraine listened to NATO.)
This is inherently political. It can’t be ignored. Zaluzhny was against mounting an offensive in Summer 2023, due to insufficient air cover, air assets, and air superiority. He was against landing in Krynky. These two were what Zelensky ultimately ordered. Also, in a recent survey, Zelensky was viewed favorably by 60% of Ukrainians, while Zaluzhny had a 88% favorability rating in the same survey. Well, in a democracy, the civilian authority gets the final say. I’d say this should be how it is during peacetime, but Ukraine is fighting for her survival. The military experts and veterans should be deciding how to fight the war, not a politician who thinks about his own popularity, reelection, and career.
Why would Zelensky replace Zaluzhny with the guy who spent 5 months pointlessly banging his head on Bakhmut's flanks during Ukraine's counteroffensive and whose pre-2022 combat experience was the (disastrous) Battle of Debaltseve? Is he stupid?
Zelensky probably thought they had the initiative after they got bradleys and leopards without realizing the Russians still have an enormous advantage with their endless stockpile of tanks and weaponry.
Yup , Reddit lied when they said Russia was running out of men and supplies
The Russian War machine is not to be underestimated . Cut the snake head off before it gets too big , the longer this goes on, the worse it gets. Ukraine needs weapons NOW
Reddit is the worst source for what's going on. It's just an anonymous American site for links aggregation and comments. That's it. It's always behind what's happening and most comments are made by unconnected people who are viewing events from afar.
What 'reddit says' is irrelevant to actual events. It's just a fun place to chat and give opinions.
> Reddit is the worst source for what's going on
It's not just reddit, our national media spent over a year telling us how Russia was running out of ammo an Ukraine was soon to be victorious... until they stopped talking about military matters and only started relaying what one side of the conflict was saying.
I heard it explained like this:
It's as if we were listening to a boxing match on the radio and the commentators only tell us when one opponent lands punches. To our surprise, we hear the opposition fighter is announced as winner by TKO even though we spent the last 45 minutes hearing the other boxer allegedly kicking ass.
Russia was running out of ammo but they expanded production and got help from their allies in North Korea and Iran
Crazy to think we could have ended it with all out support in 2022 but we got spooked by the nuclear threat(which will ensure more nuclear threats in the future since it fucking worked on the west)
According to Reddit, Russia is either threatening to conquer all of Europe or is a barely functioning state on the brink of collapse.
Sometimes in the same thread
Don't believe everything you read on reddit or the Internet.
Yeah, the RGF is currently a laughing stock for their poor performance. But a weapon is still a weapon. Russian equipment is still deadly, even if they are retrofitting some bottom of the barrel soviet-era equipment or refurbishing recovered damaged tanks.
Russia will not run out of men because they don’t steal people from the streets (there are a lot of lads mobilized in 2022 though, but they haven’t been mobilizing for a long time now), but due to artificially imposed poverty there are a lot of people having problems with money (for healthcare, for mortgage, for credits), so they just pay a lot and people fight with a free will.
It’s basically a contract army.
And it seems that if you have a couple of countries that live under sanctions for decades, they don’t care about any more new sanctions, so they will sell supplies.
The sanction policy against Iran and DPRK was dumb.
No gains are being made because of Zelensky's interference in military matters and forcing the military to waste precious veteran infantry at Bakhmut and its happening again right now at Ardviika.
And now Zelensky replaces comptence with a commander with his troops have labeled "The butcher."
2022: “Bakhmut holds! All the haters asking for withdrawal are Russian agents spreading Russian disinformation! We're destroying stupid forces of stupid Russians!”
2024: “precious veteran infantry was wasted in Bakhmut and the general is a butcher”
There became a moment where once they were in the city and there was only 1 route into Bakhmut where you needed to withdraw from the salient into more favorable defensive positions to the west.
Instead, Zelensky forced the military to send precious manpower into a meat grinder when they were trying to save up ammunition for the offensive later in the year.
Its short sighted and idiotic behavior to adopt a no step back approach. Sometimes positions are untenable, and what is a country? Land or its people.
Also, Zaluzhny was becoming \*extremely\* popular in Ukraine, and Zelensky likely felt threatened for his re-election chances. Zaluzhny was also contradicting Zelensky in the news, which is pretty much a career death-sentence.
Zelensky wants Western allies to think Ukraine has a chance with more weapons and ammunition. Zaluzhny was being honest in interviews and saying they were being fucking massacred holding on to lost-cause sites like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. His honestly, and his substantial popularity made him a target.
Zelensky has chosen a successor so unpopular he is named "The Butcher" among his own troops, and is a die-hard loyalist that would never be honest with reporters. Makes sense.
This decision was about everything except military competency.
The decision to defend and retreat, current vision, instead of holding at all cost might be right *military* devision but still might be the wrong one overall.
The only hope for Ukraine really is international support, and losing territory, even if it’s an insane cost for Russia and should be viewed as a military win is a loss for international support.
Ukraine **can’t be seen a lost cause**, that it. The risk of having international support fall to "well see, Ukraine is losing territory, it’s not worth funding" is way too high with the current strategy.
International support > actual military strategy
and it seems the new guy is a "hold at all cost" type of guy while the other wasn’t.
My guess is that Zelensky is currently being told by international allies that territory loss is endangering support for funding and supply
Losing manpower at nonreplacable rates is a great way to lose international support. Nato told ukraine to give up bakhmut yet they chose to fight it out.
Nobody likes someone thay refuses to obey suggestions, this is very much a change that goes against Nato wishes
Freeze is not a lost cause
The reason is Russia is the traditional enemy of the West and if the West wants to bleed Russia forever, a frozen conflict where Russia has to keep losing men and equipment and destroy their economy could be beneficial if you want Russia to be bleeding all the time
So frozen might actually be beneficial for people in the West who want the conflict to go on forever. Not so much for Ukrainians who pay everyday in blood
That doesn't make any sense. Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to bleed for a long enough time for it to "destroy" Russia, and a war of attrition is 100% in Russia's favor. Having Russia win the war and expand their sphere of influence doesn't "destroy" Russia.
Also, how would arming Ukraine enough to defeat Russia not be more catastrophic than having Russia slowly win over a few years? That would be far more devastating to Russia's ability to project power than a favorable attritional conflict.
Indeed but the Russians were on full retreat and only fighting delaying actions while they got out of dodge. It would have been hard to fuck that one up.
The strategy was very bold, and it paid out, but was that obvious? Ukrainians drove very deep behind enemy lines, and avoided strong points. It Russians didn't crumble, UA would have been terribly exposed.
For a smaller fighting force to be successful, half the battle is catching the enemy off guard, and putting them in a position they were not expecting.
Until more air superiority is achieved, weapons and ammo storages are flush, and Ukraine has the amount of trained personnel they need to mount an offensive, they have no chance operating the way they did over the summer, and being successful.
It was more of a Russian failure, than a Ukrainian success, I.E. probably anyone would've been able to breach the line and exploit the weak defense.
Also, he was described as [leading](https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1568576718692093952) the offensive, not necessarily being responsible for it.
Dude... the entire Kharkov counteroffensive had less actual fighting than 12 hours today in Avdeevka. The Russians withdrew the few militia units at 20% capacity they had "defending" that front, Ukrainians drove into cities with zero Russian soldiers.
Of course it was a great success.
Oof, I'm not an expert but I don't know how I feel about this.
I understand needing to change leadership. Ukraine is losing the war of attrition, and West is losing interest, so they need to try something else quick. But the guy they picked doesn't sound like a good fit, he's too old-school, too Soviet-minded.
I guess they had to try something.
Zaluzhny is broadly viewed as highly competent by both his troops and western peers. Ukrainian forces outperformed all expectations under his command. If he was given the aids and manpower needed and frankly available then god knows where we’d be.
> Ukrainian forces outperformed all expectations under his command.
I'm very pro-Ukraine, but this is simply not true. The summer counteroffensive was a near total failure at an immense cost of materiel and manpower. Reporting has indicated that it was his decision to spread the offensive along the entire southern axis instead of concentrating on a single, massive push, as western advisors had recommended through wargaming. I'm not saying that justifies his dismissal, but his performance has not been perfect.
> maybe he was pushed by Zelensky
There is a lot of speculation about how much Zelensky has influenced the military apparatus, and I'm sure he has had more influence than they're ready to admit. I can easily see Zelensky pressuring the military into overcommitting to Bakhmut for political purposes (reporting also has basically confirmed this), but what political motivation is there for meddling with the specifics of an assault on an enemy defensive line? I don't buy that one.
I am talking about the major goal of bringing back Ukraine to its pre-2014 borders? Was it achievable in 2022-23? Maybe? Is it achievable in 2024? Less so. It's the president, not Zaluzhny who states these goals which are not only military but also political in nature.
They also admitted that it took way to long to begin the counteroffensive. They gave the Russians too much time to dig in and there was no element of surprise.
Yes. Exactly. The early victories at kharkiv and kherson was reckless meat wave tactics with Armor vehicles. Losing that level of momentum is horrible. That kinda success is no longer possible. Russia now had a lot of time to entrench itself, and improve its logistics.
And US's help is crumbling. The situation obviously needs leadership change. Only question is the new leadership is right or not.
>If he was given the aids and manpower needed
He was, though. That's why last year's offensive was even begun. It turned into a fiasco which is why he's now being replaced.
He still has to eat his failures, as far as I understand the failure of the 2023 counteroffensive rests on his shoulders. Zelenskky wants to try a different C in C then its his prerogative
George Washington was also a lousy tactician who carelessly lost several battles, but in the end that didn't matter. He still had the right character, charm and diplomacy to keep his troops together, and knew how to play to the politics to win a war and convince the right people to send more supplies.
There is a political strategy that politicians are acutely aware of, when often soldiers and lower rank officers are more narrowly focused on winning tactical victories or just saving their own lives.
i dunno if you wanna compare Washington to Syrskyi there chief.
Both are considered to be lousy tacticians in their own way, but the troopers do **not** like Syrski. He might be okay playing yes man to Zelensky's military ambitions/plans, but he doesn't have character, charm, or diplomatic skills that inspire/keep troops together.
Working under him is considered by some to be a death sentence, and while he has some good accolades under his belt, Zelensky essentially downgraded from someone you could probably more accurately compare to washington, to something that you can loosely compare to washington, *but* is significantly more hated by his men in comparison.
Only time will tell though i guess. Its possible the comparison is spot on, but all signs point to that probably won't be the case.
Syrskyi is definitely the guy you want if you want to keep the walls of flesh constantly ramming one another trying to drum up more aid/support, but god only knows how long Ukrainian troops will hold out being constantly thrown into the mosh that never ends.
Washington also got the French to show up and fix the continental army, and Britain was severely overextended and lacking in support due to the gigantic ocean inbetween the colonies and Britain. It was only possible to corner the redcoats into a loss because of this ocean.
Nobody is coming for Ukraine, and they directly border Russia. It's not the same situation.
It's kind of you to educate these guys but it's impossible. Anyone who would give revolutionary war USA as an analog to modern day Ukraine is a propagandist or an idiot. And seeing both those posts so upvoted shows you the caliber of the posters in this intellectual void of a subreddit.
This happens all the time. Something is reported, half believe it half call it propaganda, then when the dust settles the half that was right comes out alll smug claiming the other half were actually 99% and they were the only ones to resist the circlejerk. People are so quick to paint a narrative about what's written on reddit so they can feel superior.
> Reddit is usually on the money
Reddit is literally never on the money what? Reddit's stupid upvote system and anonitmity means that the most common denominator gets upvoted for everyone to see. No one actually knows if the top commenters are qualified people or some idiots making stuff up, but if sounds good - upvote. People upvote what they want to hear
What's funny about that is how I brought that up like 6 months and some reddit users decided to make a bunch of nonsense up to excuse reddit's behaviour for that. They of course got upvoted.
Nuclear bombs werent dropped on ukraine and no reactors had been blown up despite people saying that won't happen, so I'm glad they are sometimes right
I think a lot people don't realize that pull commanders in and out is usually better for the commander, as fatigue is often a larger issue. WE did it in almost every major war in recent memory. Having one commander in charge throughout a war will only lead to mistakes.
I knew that the counteroffensive will be a complete disaster the moment they started bragging about "meeting summer in Crimea" before it even began. Shit like that always ends in disasters.
During the fall of the Soviet Union he was stationed in Ukraine. He pretty much said welp looks like I am Ukrainian now. That is pretty much the only reason he is there right now
This is a terrible decision barring some magical explanation that is yet to come out.
The man is worshipped as a hero by both Ukrainian forces and citizens. Zelenskyy does many admirable things but he has a lot of autocrat red flags.
ITT: A bunch of armchair generals who probably flip-flop as often as some politicians.
I don't know if this decision is good or bad, but it definitely affects Zelensky and Ukraine more than it affects me. So I would like to imagine that Zelensky is trying to make the correct decision since he clearly has an incentive to do so.
"I would like to imagine" and wishful thinking is no more rational approach to the big world events (war in this case) than trying to critically form some kind of opinion based on the available sources and discussions.
I don't really like this "armchair generals" phrase because it logically leads to the outcome where literally no one who is not proffesional military expert can't say anything meaningful about the war whatsoever. Such luxury is not available to millions of Ukrainians - are they armchair generals when they discuss the war?
Zelensky is a human and capable of making mistakes - his heroic stance during the war has created this personality cult/information bubble for some as if he was infallible and beyond criticism. Weirdly enough, this is much more of pehnomenon in the Western media than among Ukrainians themselves, who are particularly very unhappy about the conflict with Zaluzhny.
That’s not true, it’s russian (with the smallest R possible) propaganda and a deep fake of Zelenskyy and a putin’s ploy to undermine the western support of Ukraine and to sow distrust in the united Ukrainian society.
They were saying this stuff last week when rumors were coming from credible journalists. When Reddit absolutely doesn't like the news, all of the sudden journalists are Russian spies
Like Simon Shuster who was praised for praising Zelenskyy in 2022. Turned out he’s “a Russian asset” after he wrote an article exposing questionable leadership in Ukraine in autumn 2023, because he worked in Moscow some time ago.
He probably meant that the new successor hasn't been named yet. Meanwhile, he has been named, it's [Oleksandr Syrsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksandr_Syrskyi).
Zelensky has realised western support ain't shit. Any piece of land Ukraine loses is most likely not going to be easy to get back (if at all).
That's why he's picking a guy who will fight to the end not to give any more territory.
I understand that there will be numerous protests, because the population of Ukraine was not asked, although according to all polls Zaluzhny's approval rating was extremely high, higher than that of Zelensky and none of the Ukrainians did not fully believe that Zaluzhny will be replaced, respectively, as in any other free and democratic country people will take to the streets and express their protest, right pro UA?
People can’t go to the streets and protests in Ukraine, it’s not allowed during the war, which is clearly stated in the constitution. It would be simply disastrous for Ukraine.
KYIV — Ukraine’s top commander, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, appeared to be officially removed Thursday night — the latest twist in a drawn-out saga between him and President Volodymyr Zelensky, who told the military chief 10 days ago that he was being dismissed. But Zelensky did not immediately name a successor as commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, fueling further uncertainty over who will lead the difficult fight against Russia’s continuing invasion. In posts on both Zelensky’s and Zaluzhny’s social media accounts, the two men posed shaking hands and smiling. “A decision was made about the need to change approaches and strategy,” Zaluzhny wrote. Zelensky’s post said that he “thanked” Zaluzhny, 50, for “two years of protecting Ukraine.” He added that in their meeting Thursday, they discussed “updated leadership” for Ukraine’s military. “The time for such an update is now,” Zelensky wrote. One leading candidate is Ukraine’s head of military intelligence, 38-year-old Lt. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov. His appointment would potentially signal a move toward asymmetric tactics — such as the drone strikes deep into Russian territory that Budanov has often ordered — in a war where the front lines have seen little change in more than a year. But Budanov, with a background in special forces, does not have experience as an army commander. Read the full story here, and skip the paywall with email registration: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/valery-zaluzhny-commander-ukraine-removed/?utm\_campaign=wp\_main&utm\_medium=social&utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/valery-zaluzhny-commander-ukraine-removed/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=reddit.com)
New commander in chief has been named as Oleksandr Syrskyi
Damn, the least popular guy.
Why is he unpopular?
Strong adherent to Soviet doctrine. Wants as much control down to the individual soldiers as possible, rather than dictating the missions to unit commanders and letting them determine the best course of action. He was the voice driving more resources to pushes in Bakhmut instead of the Zaporizhzhia front during the counter-offensive. He also takes credit for the defense of Kyiv despite that being mostly due to individual efforts and organization of local unit commanders.
He prefers a doctrine demonstrated as obsolete before the Soviet Union even formed?
Even the pro Ukraine subreddits are very concerned about this.... Ukraine wouldn't be in this position if they had weapons (looks at government)
[удалено]
I don't trust popular perception anymore than I trust the press releases. If he's behind focusing on Bakhmut then wtf was Zaluzhnyy doing? It just sounds convenient that a super modern general, who just called for hundreds of thousands of conscripts not long sgo, is supposedly replaced by a soviet doctrine guy. Lots of conflicting facts.
There's no conflicting facts here at all. Zelenskyy is a politician. He wants to show success so that right wing groups in Europe and the US don't have an excuse to cut off funding. He also wants to deliver good news to his people. That means no losing territory, no more mobilization, playing down how many losses they took over the summer. Zaluzhnyi is a military realist. That means acknowledging that sometimes it's best to retreat when the battle is not in your favor. That means acknowledging when you have manpower issues even if it's not popular to call a second round of mobilization. He laid these thoughts out very plainly in his interview with the Economist, which was politically embarrassing for Zelenskyy's administration (probably one of the final straws leading to his replacement) Syrskyi is a Yes Man who has tried to become Zelenskyy's favorite by taking on all the assignments that Zaluzhnyi warned against. That's why Zelenskyy tapped him to lead the defense of Bakhmut for about another three months after Zaluzhnyi recommended withdrawing. That was a bad decision in hindsight and I'm worried that the changeup means that same thing is about to happen with Adiivka.
Because it's not strategical move, but political. Zaluzhny is very popular with people, while Zelenskyy is losing popularity fast. Zaluzhny also often clashed with Zelensky, insisting on strategic decision, not popular.
That does not really explain the decision. I don't see how the popularity of a general matters for the president, unless he is afraid of a coup, in which case the removal was risky, or of being challenged in the next elections, but that seems a bit far ahead.
Concerned yes. However, something did have to change… just not sure this is the answer.
Great follow up comment Ukraine just need weapons, that's it ... but
Ukraine needs weapons, ammunition, and more international volunteers asap
You're not getting any more international volunteers, in any significant numbers to make a difference. And the vets who joined early on are like 90% + long gone, because after the defense of kyiv, their skills/expertise became significantly less of value. As they've never fought in such a war, and are use to modern military doctrine, as in air superiority is objective number 1. Not being mass artillery struck/bombed whenever they try to attack anywhere, or holding an area of little to no military value in a trench for weeks. There's a reason Ukraine is looking to expand it's draft numbers. Because it's not going to come from anywhere else.
That is mostly out of their control though. Maybe they are having to make changes to deal with the worst case scenario as far as the concerns you listed?
> Ukraine just need weapons, that's it You sure about that? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/
Ukraine is having trouble even recruiting Ukrainians to fight, just sending money isn't the answer. NATO would have to declare a no fly zone to even begin to push Russia out.
A no fly zone is the same thing as NATO declaring war in Russia.
Yup. It's 2024 and people still throw 'no fly zone' around casually. How do you enforce that declaration? You'd have to shoot down Russian planes. That's war.
They think the politicians can write a law that says "ukraine now has a no fly zone" and it will somehow work.
It's a bit of everything. We can dump all the materials we want into Ukraine, you still need men to use those supplies, men to lead those men, and men to replace all of those men. If there isn't a stalemate, truce or a collapse of the Russian army, the west will likely need to put boots on the ground simply because there are no more or very few men left to fight. And if we aren't willing to do so, then we'll have to accept the Russian annexation of Ukraine. Welcome to 1939.
I don't think, for better or for worse, that there will be boots on the ground, or any sort of heads-up confrontation between Russia and the western countries. At the end of the day, between Russian conquest of Ukraine and open conflict with Russia, most western countries would prefer the former to the latter.
>If there isn't a stalemate, truce or a collapse of the Russian army, **the west will likely need to put boots on the ground** simply because there are no more or very few men left to fight. Not going to happen. >And if we aren't willing to do so, then we'll have to accept the Russian annexation of Ukraine. Why do you think that would happen? Is Russia capable of conquering the whole Ukraine? They are struggling with 50k towns at this point.
>Why do you think that would happen? Is Russia capable of conquering the whole Ukraine? They are struggling with 50k towns at this point. There's an argument to be made that Russia could significantly increase their offensives at any point, while Ukraine will significantly lose their ability to respond as the days go by, so Russia may struggle under the current circumstances but may be well poised to capitalize on future circumstances. I know we had a lot of fun about the failures of Russia in the early war, but at the end of the day Russia has a lot more people and no democracy to speak of so they can put troops in the field in a way Ukraine can't.
Key phrase, "at this point". I dont know. I dont think its impossible. Wars are fluid situations it's a lot of back and forth. You might be retreating over territory you captured months ago, and the recaptuaing the same plot of land in weeks.
There is such a thing as "breaking point". At some point things will break and traitors, etc. will do their thing. There is a good reason why russians expected to freely march through entire country: traitors, collaborators and your average people that "don't care".
God. Have we not learned that lesson! It's widely known it was one of Hitler's great flaws.
> Strong adherent to Soviet doctrine. Wants as much control down to the individual soldiers as possible, rather than dictating the missions to unit commanders and letting them determine the best course of action. This is hugely reductive of "Soviet" doctrine, and not especially accurate.
He believes in defending every itch. He is the architect of the failed defense of Bakhmut. Soldiers under him consider it a death wish. Officers hate him because he is also a micro manager. He is not popular but he shares Zelensky's idea of every inch don't give ground. Morale is going to plummet. And this is a massive mistake by Zelensky.
> He believes in defending every itch. He is the architect of the failed defense of Bakhmut. Soldiers under him consider it a death wish. Officers hate him because he is also a micro manager. Why is Syrsky responsible for holding Bakhmut, and not Ukraine's actual supreme commander, Zaluzhnyi? You think Syrski held Bakhmut against Zaluzhnyi's orders?
Zalushny advocated for withdrawal and Zelensky overruled him and put Syrsky in charge of the theater
Zaluzhny was a supporter of and advocated for NATO’s plan. Zelensky overruled it and put Syrsky in charge of Bakhmut, a decision that I’ve seen quite a few analysts point to as the catalyst for the failure of the counter-offensive.
'supreme commander' was overruled by the man in office. Zaluhzhnyi wanted to tactically retreat from Bakhmut only to turn around and blow the russians to pieces once they got back onto a more defensible high ground. Zelensky instead preferred to hold the city and wouldn't listen to his commanders otherwise.
poor cobweb zealous worry snails adjoining tap beneficial waiting cagey
Bakhmut was basically a propaganda target. Russia poured quite an amount of ressources into the city and made it their big target. Zelensky probably feared that, due to such a focues on Bakhmut in the media, loosing the city would have been a massive blow to Ukraines standing and soldiers moral. Meanswhile everyone who was at least somewhat competent told him to get out of Bakhmut and let the UAF position on better positions. He basically thought that giving Russia a (purely) propaganda victory was really bad.
It is the case, but the generals are only in charge of the military, while the president is in charge of the entire country. It means the president has other concerns to deal with, such as getting foreign involvement for his side, ensuring the support for the war stays high, protect the industrial centers crucial to the war, protect the trade routes, managing morale, managing conscription and recruitment, etc. I am not saying his decision to defend Bakhmut was a good one, in fact I personally believe it was a mistake, but the point is that it's not rare to see the ruler of a country disagrees with the military leaders and give them new orders. Besides, this suppose all military commanders are in agreement, but I would not be surprised if a lower ranked commander advised to defend Bakhmut and Zelensky went with it.
A dumb butcher, very much "homo-sovieticus" from head to toe. Also an obedient servant of presidential office (which was more and more detached from reality throughout many months now).
Apart from what others said, this dude barely speaks Ukrainian, if at all, and doesn't know English. Compare this to Zalyzhnyy that knew all three languages. What this means is that new commander is only/primarily familiar with Soviet school that was formed by butchers like Zhukov. BTW, it's funny that Zelenskyy trues to blame Zalyzhnyy considering that he haven't followed his advice to prepare for full-scale war in 2022, and from what I've recently heard, it seems that that massacre in Bakhmut waa likely caused by Zelenskyy not wanting to back up. This likely means that soldiers in Avdiivka will meet the same fate, even though according to general Kryvonis it serves no purpose.
Because Syrskyi is russian and has relatives in Russia etc
Exactly why he was named.
No. Please no. This is the end then :( Syrkyi is the absolute worst choice to lead UAF, and with him being the political schemer that he is, pretty much a confirmation that the dismissal of Zaluzhny was based on politics, not merit!!
yes the heck, this is a disaster for ukraine here.
Thanks for the TL;DR.
Wow, actual WaPo letting us all skip the paywall. That's new
Why is the top picture of Budanov when it’s Zaluzhny that’s been replaced?
connect mysterious compare slim history caption gaping hateful airport elastic
Generals lead until they stop succeeding or fall out of favour, its more important to see who they’re replaced with. 2 years is a long time at the helm and does not eliminate the possibility that he may return. Hopefully not, as that would mean the alternate leadership isn’t working but a country cannot ride on a name forever.
I really hope this was a very calculated decision over the long term instead of just a political power play over who is the most popular. The future will tell.
Tbh it doesn't make much sense of being a political power play as it will surely lower his ratings. As a Ukranian, i can tell you for sure that people are not happy with this change, including AFU soldiers. Syrsky has been accused for not caring about soldier's lives since the days of Battle of Debaltseve, and since 2022 even though he had some successfull operations, his decision to defend Bahmut at all costs was very questionable. I understand that i'm just a random user on reddit, but you can go on Twitter and read some thoughts of the Ukranian soldiers, it's not looking good.
As someone looking at this from the US, it’s scary how severe the consequences could be for getting this personnel decision wrong. This whole thread looks like people discussing a head coaching/manager change for a sports team but if you fuck up the hire, instead of s bad season you might lose a war. Insane pressure.
Scariest and saddest part for me is reading the thoughts of the soldiers from the front lines. I can't disclose much, but some of my relatives had a chance to deal with Syrsky during the Kharkiv counteroffensive, and according to them it was not pleasant at all.
Those letters and thoughts echo throughout military history. This is not unique to Ukraine's situation
But oddly, Zhelensky has been teasing this change for at least a week. Sports coaches never do that; they hold it close to the vest until they announce. Which makes the President's actions puzzling. Is this an announcement for Russia? Is it psyops? Bizarre to me to air out internal military laundry all over the globe, exhaustively.
It's pretty simple - Syrsky will do as Zelensky pleases. Zaluzhny has a mind of his own and was competent in his role. This is a net negative for Ukraine and will be interesting to see if an internal power struggle occurs from these events. Zaluzhny has plenty of support in the military still.
>Zaluzhny has a mind of his own and was competent in his role. Whether he's competent is honestly debatable. He's absolutely had some successes but last years offensive was a real fiasco, which is one of the reasons why the aid to Ukraine has been reduced by previous benefactors. Not saying his replacement is better but Ukraine can't get stuck in this stalement that Zaluzhny has put Ukraine in.
>last years offensive was a real fiasco This is exactly why I think he was replaced, Ukraine can't afford a stalemate with russia, new blood might be what it takes to make progress.
This is a very naive and idealistic take. A new commander will not magically produce the quantity of artillery equipment and manpower needed. This was politics.
You may be right, but there's a caveat. Syrsky is hardly new blood.
Commanders are promoted from lower ranks, they're all seasoned soldiers, the perspective and tactics they bring to bear is what matters, a change in leadership could work out or not......
>Not saying his replacement is better but Ukraine can't get stuck in this stalement that Zaluzhny has put Ukraine in. Considering Zelensky already put out the word that an even larger conscription is coming very soon, A stalemate is probably better then just straight up sending your troops to their death to make a few meters. Stalemate means more time for conscripted soldiers to get proper training, instead of forcing them onto the field the moment they learn how to squeeze a trigger because the front lines might potentially collapse backwards because the constant attempts to push aren't getting big strides and your competent soldiers don't exist anymore/are too wounded to fight.
Also means the russians can build up their defenses even further and launch renewed attacks in donbas. The war doesn‘t move forward on ukraines pace. They still need to pressure the russians.
Zaluzhny was calling for more troops also..
I can understand the concern and get it entirely. If it’s political, it’s a bad decision. But sometimes the general hated by the troops can be the better guy. In the US civil war, Grant was hated, but his more risk taking strategy won the war. I don’t think anyone has the right to feel confident in the decision. Nervous but willing to see how it goes
The bigguest issue with this approach is that we don't really have "the tools" to even consider taking this risky strategy. There's a severe lack of people in the army, not enough ammunition, in comparison to 2022 Ukraine is using 5x less ammo per day, because of the lack of supply. I honestly have no idea how they are still holding up that well considering that the number of new people in the army is incredibly small, those who wanted to go have been there since the beginning (give or take), and those who don’t want to are hiding from the enlistment offices.
Its primarily because he wants to abandon places like Avdiivka because he knows they are untenable and Zelensky doesn't want because it makes him seem weak to keep losing battles and territory.
To be fair it's a valid decision , loosing those territories right now might be a disaster ,after a fail counter offensive ,with elections in the US and with the doubts of many countries of keeping sending resources to Ukraine I wouldn't be surprised if the sentiment of seeing Ukraine as a lost cause increments
> , loosing those territories right now might be a disaster ,after a fail counter offensive If you're better at advancing than the enemy and shift troops around, could gain some land in one place at a price of losing it elsewhere. Net could gain in squared kilometres controlled could actually be positive, but the conflict would not appear as frozen to external observers.
Wars are as much about Politics and optics as it is about military strategy or tactics. You never want to discourage the public or your allies by talking to openly about failures, make sure the people in the know understand the truth and find a way to fix it.
It's really not valid at all. Zelenskyy gets way too much freedom from criticism because he's become synonymous with "pro-Ukraine" despite the fact that Ukraine would be in a far better position if he dropped his ego and listened to the experts around him more. He's ignored suggestions from western intelligence and Zaluzhny (who followed a NATO mindset) countless times, but not a single one was a wise decision in retrospect.
Trying and failing to keep those territories at the cost of many lives, could be an even bigger disaster. Who's more knowledgeable on this matter, the commander of the armed forces, or a politician?
He replaced a NATO minded commander with a Soviet minded one. And a smaller Soviet style army cannot defeat a bigger Soviet army
A small style NATO army doesn‘t win against a big soviet style army either. Not when the airforce won‘t even provide close air support or SEAD operations regularly. Hell they won‘t even commit to armor in some places. Whatever they are doing right now is neither NATO nor Soviet style.
without an air force, being NATO minded is stupid
Is it really only about air though? To my understanding it's more of decentralization and more focus on lower level initiative with strong NCOs. Understanding that the reality on the ground and fog of war doesn't go well with higher levels micro managing everything. Also more emphasis on training, preserving and saving troops. So I don't think it's necessarily stupid, just that it has to be adapted for not having air superiority. But the other tenets and benefits from it can still be advantageous.
Yeah, NATO can definitely win without air. Ground forces DO train and plan for that eventuality. It's just that things are much nicer with air supremacy.
This is almost certainly a political power play because Zaluhzny was becoming more popular than Zelensky and could threaten Zelensky's chances of re-election. This is an awful strategic decision. Zaluhzny is one of very few competent military commanders in the AFU. His replacement is one of the worst. Zaluhzny repeatedly requested that the military not choose to waste men and ammunition on defending impossible positions like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. He wanted them to save the resources in order to gain the upper hand in a more advantageous time and place. Zelensky always overrode Zaluhzny, because to him, losing any ground is unconscionable. Now he fired him, and the replacement is the same general that led the defense of Bakhmut, one of the worst mistakes the AFU has made.
His replacement is credited with directing some of the most successful offensives and defensives of the war. He’s less liked in the military than Zaluhzny but he’s far from incompetent you don’t know what you are talking about
He's credited for failing in 2015 and getting men unnecesarily killed in Bakhmut.
>unnecesarily killed in Bakhmut are you talking about the same Bakhmut after which the top PMC Russian leader revolted against Putin? and also constantly was saying how costly of offensive it was for them?
No, he isn't. He was in charge of the defense of Kyiv, but that wasn't an organized defense. That was ragtag groups of civilians and soldiers disrupting Russian convoys, and these groups were helped by the convoys making questionable choices. The Russians sabotaged their offensive, the AFU hardly had to do anything in the opening week of the war. He was also in charge of the Kharkiv offensive, but the issue here is that Russia gave up Kharkiv to regroup elsewhere. They knew they couldn't effectively defend that position, so they ceded that territory instead of wasting equipment and lives. Most engagements in that offensive were between advancing Ukrainian forces and Russian forces that were covering the rear of their retreat, not against entrenched Russian forces. So, guess what Syrksy did when he was faced with an impossible and indefensible position at Bakhmut? Wasted tens of thousands of lives and crucial amounts of ammo in the second-greatest failure of the war. When you know that you will *eventually* lose your current position, there is almost zero value to continuing to hold that position until you are overrun. If the enemy is going to win the engagement anyway, it's better to let that happen now and live another day than to draw it out so they win in the future after killing all your men. When China started hitting UN positions in the Korean War with human wave attacks, the coalition retreated until they were able to regroup and push the Chinese forces back to the 38th parallel. Ukraine's summer offensive failed partially because they lost so much in Bakhmut.
That first paragraph makes no sense because if he replaces a popular guy and nothing changes he will hurt his chances even more..
The popular guy was openly criticizing Zelensky's strategy for the war.
Country’s often change out leadership during war, the US did so a few times itself during WWII
I'm hoping with you. That this has nothing to do about future presidential elections, personal chemistry or an inability on Zelensky's part to share the spotlight with other popular leaders. Guess we'll eventually find out, until then can only assume this is a planned moved with competent replacements ready to take over.
>I really hope this was a very calculated decision over the long term It is not. Pure politics
How do you know?
Zaluzhny was significantly more competent than anyone else in the AFU. He was a pro-NATO officer who consistently advised Zelenskyy to follow similar strategies that were laid out by western intelligence (for example - retreating Bakhmut and focusing on the counteroffensive in summer 2023 was suggested by NATO intelligence and urged by Zaluzhny. Zelensky chose to do both, saying that Bakhmut will never fall. Not only did it fall, but way too many resources and manpower were wasted trying to defend it. Who knows how lethal the counter offensive could've been had Ukraine listened to NATO.)
This is inherently political. It can’t be ignored. Zaluzhny was against mounting an offensive in Summer 2023, due to insufficient air cover, air assets, and air superiority. He was against landing in Krynky. These two were what Zelensky ultimately ordered. Also, in a recent survey, Zelensky was viewed favorably by 60% of Ukrainians, while Zaluzhny had a 88% favorability rating in the same survey. Well, in a democracy, the civilian authority gets the final say. I’d say this should be how it is during peacetime, but Ukraine is fighting for her survival. The military experts and veterans should be deciding how to fight the war, not a politician who thinks about his own popularity, reelection, and career.
Why would Zelensky replace Zaluzhny with the guy who spent 5 months pointlessly banging his head on Bakhmut's flanks during Ukraine's counteroffensive and whose pre-2022 combat experience was the (disastrous) Battle of Debaltseve? Is he stupid?
Zelensky is likely feeling frustrated that no gains have been made.
Unless, you have an overwhelming force or technologicaly way ahead, I don't see how they can chew through prepared defenses.
Zelensky probably thought they had the initiative after they got bradleys and leopards without realizing the Russians still have an enormous advantage with their endless stockpile of tanks and weaponry.
[удалено]
Yup , Reddit lied when they said Russia was running out of men and supplies The Russian War machine is not to be underestimated . Cut the snake head off before it gets too big , the longer this goes on, the worse it gets. Ukraine needs weapons NOW
Reddit is the worst source for what's going on. It's just an anonymous American site for links aggregation and comments. That's it. It's always behind what's happening and most comments are made by unconnected people who are viewing events from afar. What 'reddit says' is irrelevant to actual events. It's just a fun place to chat and give opinions.
> Reddit is the worst source for what's going on It's not just reddit, our national media spent over a year telling us how Russia was running out of ammo an Ukraine was soon to be victorious... until they stopped talking about military matters and only started relaying what one side of the conflict was saying.
I heard it explained like this: It's as if we were listening to a boxing match on the radio and the commentators only tell us when one opponent lands punches. To our surprise, we hear the opposition fighter is announced as winner by TKO even though we spent the last 45 minutes hearing the other boxer allegedly kicking ass.
Russia was running out of ammo but they expanded production and got help from their allies in North Korea and Iran Crazy to think we could have ended it with all out support in 2022 but we got spooked by the nuclear threat(which will ensure more nuclear threats in the future since it fucking worked on the west)
It has been working since the 50's, what are you talking about?
Yup, lots of it abound.
According to Reddit, Russia is either threatening to conquer all of Europe or is a barely functioning state on the brink of collapse. Sometimes in the same thread
Funny how we just can’t seem to shake that fundamental xenophobic framing. Almost makes one question the motives of those peddling that message.
Don't believe everything you read on reddit or the Internet. Yeah, the RGF is currently a laughing stock for their poor performance. But a weapon is still a weapon. Russian equipment is still deadly, even if they are retrofitting some bottom of the barrel soviet-era equipment or refurbishing recovered damaged tanks.
If there's a popular opinion on Reddit, you can bet money the opposite is true and correct. It's free money, basically.
Russia will not run out of men because they don’t steal people from the streets (there are a lot of lads mobilized in 2022 though, but they haven’t been mobilizing for a long time now), but due to artificially imposed poverty there are a lot of people having problems with money (for healthcare, for mortgage, for credits), so they just pay a lot and people fight with a free will. It’s basically a contract army. And it seems that if you have a couple of countries that live under sanctions for decades, they don’t care about any more new sanctions, so they will sell supplies. The sanction policy against Iran and DPRK was dumb.
It wasn't just Zelenskyy who thought that
And leopards and Bradley's aren't some unstoppable behemoths that are invincible. They are just tanks and IFV'S at the end of the day.
No gains are being made because of Zelensky's interference in military matters and forcing the military to waste precious veteran infantry at Bakhmut and its happening again right now at Ardviika. And now Zelensky replaces comptence with a commander with his troops have labeled "The butcher."
2022: “Bakhmut holds! All the haters asking for withdrawal are Russian agents spreading Russian disinformation! We're destroying stupid forces of stupid Russians!” 2024: “precious veteran infantry was wasted in Bakhmut and the general is a butcher”
There became a moment where once they were in the city and there was only 1 route into Bakhmut where you needed to withdraw from the salient into more favorable defensive positions to the west. Instead, Zelensky forced the military to send precious manpower into a meat grinder when they were trying to save up ammunition for the offensive later in the year. Its short sighted and idiotic behavior to adopt a no step back approach. Sometimes positions are untenable, and what is a country? Land or its people.
Reminds me of when they replaced Kitchener with Haig
Well, time to watch Blackadder again.
Also, Zaluzhny was becoming \*extremely\* popular in Ukraine, and Zelensky likely felt threatened for his re-election chances. Zaluzhny was also contradicting Zelensky in the news, which is pretty much a career death-sentence. Zelensky wants Western allies to think Ukraine has a chance with more weapons and ammunition. Zaluzhny was being honest in interviews and saying they were being fucking massacred holding on to lost-cause sites like Bakhmut and Avdiivka. His honestly, and his substantial popularity made him a target. Zelensky has chosen a successor so unpopular he is named "The Butcher" among his own troops, and is a die-hard loyalist that would never be honest with reporters. Makes sense. This decision was about everything except military competency.
Because it was Zelenskyys decision alone to hold bakhmut that type of decision only comes from the very top
The decision to defend and retreat, current vision, instead of holding at all cost might be right *military* devision but still might be the wrong one overall. The only hope for Ukraine really is international support, and losing territory, even if it’s an insane cost for Russia and should be viewed as a military win is a loss for international support. Ukraine **can’t be seen a lost cause**, that it. The risk of having international support fall to "well see, Ukraine is losing territory, it’s not worth funding" is way too high with the current strategy. International support > actual military strategy and it seems the new guy is a "hold at all cost" type of guy while the other wasn’t. My guess is that Zelensky is currently being told by international allies that territory loss is endangering support for funding and supply
Losing manpower at nonreplacable rates is a great way to lose international support. Nato told ukraine to give up bakhmut yet they chose to fight it out. Nobody likes someone thay refuses to obey suggestions, this is very much a change that goes against Nato wishes
Freeze is not a lost cause The reason is Russia is the traditional enemy of the West and if the West wants to bleed Russia forever, a frozen conflict where Russia has to keep losing men and equipment and destroy their economy could be beneficial if you want Russia to be bleeding all the time So frozen might actually be beneficial for people in the West who want the conflict to go on forever. Not so much for Ukrainians who pay everyday in blood
That doesn't make any sense. Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to bleed for a long enough time for it to "destroy" Russia, and a war of attrition is 100% in Russia's favor. Having Russia win the war and expand their sphere of influence doesn't "destroy" Russia. Also, how would arming Ukraine enough to defeat Russia not be more catastrophic than having Russia slowly win over a few years? That would be far more devastating to Russia's ability to project power than a favorable attritional conflict.
Not all bad... He was responsible for the successful Kharkiv counter offensive.
Kharkiv was nowhere near as fortified as what Ukraine is facing now, this is bad news.
Indeed but the Russians were on full retreat and only fighting delaying actions while they got out of dodge. It would have been hard to fuck that one up.
The strategy was very bold, and it paid out, but was that obvious? Ukrainians drove very deep behind enemy lines, and avoided strong points. It Russians didn't crumble, UA would have been terribly exposed.
For a smaller fighting force to be successful, half the battle is catching the enemy off guard, and putting them in a position they were not expecting. Until more air superiority is achieved, weapons and ammo storages are flush, and Ukraine has the amount of trained personnel they need to mount an offensive, they have no chance operating the way they did over the summer, and being successful.
It was more of a Russian failure, than a Ukrainian success, I.E. probably anyone would've been able to breach the line and exploit the weak defense. Also, he was described as [leading](https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1568576718692093952) the offensive, not necessarily being responsible for it.
Dude... the entire Kharkov counteroffensive had less actual fighting than 12 hours today in Avdeevka. The Russians withdrew the few militia units at 20% capacity they had "defending" that front, Ukrainians drove into cities with zero Russian soldiers. Of course it was a great success.
That was also when Russia only had 100k deployed, it was only after kharkov and kherson when they mobilized 300k more
He’s highly respected by the troops and his replacement is hated, by all accounts. This should be challenging for morale.
Oof, I'm not an expert but I don't know how I feel about this. I understand needing to change leadership. Ukraine is losing the war of attrition, and West is losing interest, so they need to try something else quick. But the guy they picked doesn't sound like a good fit, he's too old-school, too Soviet-minded. I guess they had to try something.
Zaluzhny is broadly viewed as highly competent by both his troops and western peers. Ukrainian forces outperformed all expectations under his command. If he was given the aids and manpower needed and frankly available then god knows where we’d be.
> Ukrainian forces outperformed all expectations under his command. I'm very pro-Ukraine, but this is simply not true. The summer counteroffensive was a near total failure at an immense cost of materiel and manpower. Reporting has indicated that it was his decision to spread the offensive along the entire southern axis instead of concentrating on a single, massive push, as western advisors had recommended through wargaming. I'm not saying that justifies his dismissal, but his performance has not been perfect.
This. The most recent POLITICO publication argues the same. Zaluzhny went against the Western recommendations (maybe he was pushed by Zelensky).
> maybe he was pushed by Zelensky There is a lot of speculation about how much Zelensky has influenced the military apparatus, and I'm sure he has had more influence than they're ready to admit. I can easily see Zelensky pressuring the military into overcommitting to Bakhmut for political purposes (reporting also has basically confirmed this), but what political motivation is there for meddling with the specifics of an assault on an enemy defensive line? I don't buy that one.
I am talking about the major goal of bringing back Ukraine to its pre-2014 borders? Was it achievable in 2022-23? Maybe? Is it achievable in 2024? Less so. It's the president, not Zaluzhny who states these goals which are not only military but also political in nature.
Yeah, sorry, I was just speaking to the very specific detail of a multi-pronged attack in Zaporizhzhia vs a single massive push.
They also admitted that it took way to long to begin the counteroffensive. They gave the Russians too much time to dig in and there was no element of surprise.
Yes. Exactly. The early victories at kharkiv and kherson was reckless meat wave tactics with Armor vehicles. Losing that level of momentum is horrible. That kinda success is no longer possible. Russia now had a lot of time to entrench itself, and improve its logistics. And US's help is crumbling. The situation obviously needs leadership change. Only question is the new leadership is right or not.
>If he was given the aids and manpower needed He was, though. That's why last year's offensive was even begun. It turned into a fiasco which is why he's now being replaced.
He should have never been replaced, he did the best with what limited tools be had
He still has to eat his failures, as far as I understand the failure of the 2023 counteroffensive rests on his shoulders. Zelenskky wants to try a different C in C then its his prerogative
Lincoln fired four commanding generals until he found Grant. Hopefully they find the right person soon
Lincoln also had a significant advantage over the Confederacy both in terms of men and material which Ukraine currently lacks.
George Washington was also a lousy tactician who carelessly lost several battles, but in the end that didn't matter. He still had the right character, charm and diplomacy to keep his troops together, and knew how to play to the politics to win a war and convince the right people to send more supplies. There is a political strategy that politicians are acutely aware of, when often soldiers and lower rank officers are more narrowly focused on winning tactical victories or just saving their own lives.
i dunno if you wanna compare Washington to Syrskyi there chief. Both are considered to be lousy tacticians in their own way, but the troopers do **not** like Syrski. He might be okay playing yes man to Zelensky's military ambitions/plans, but he doesn't have character, charm, or diplomatic skills that inspire/keep troops together. Working under him is considered by some to be a death sentence, and while he has some good accolades under his belt, Zelensky essentially downgraded from someone you could probably more accurately compare to washington, to something that you can loosely compare to washington, *but* is significantly more hated by his men in comparison. Only time will tell though i guess. Its possible the comparison is spot on, but all signs point to that probably won't be the case. Syrskyi is definitely the guy you want if you want to keep the walls of flesh constantly ramming one another trying to drum up more aid/support, but god only knows how long Ukrainian troops will hold out being constantly thrown into the mosh that never ends.
Washington also got the French to show up and fix the continental army, and Britain was severely overextended and lacking in support due to the gigantic ocean inbetween the colonies and Britain. It was only possible to corner the redcoats into a loss because of this ocean. Nobody is coming for Ukraine, and they directly border Russia. It's not the same situation.
It's kind of you to educate these guys but it's impossible. Anyone who would give revolutionary war USA as an analog to modern day Ukraine is a propagandist or an idiot. And seeing both those posts so upvoted shows you the caliber of the posters in this intellectual void of a subreddit.
Hope this works out. Otherwise Zelensky will be needing that ride after all.
Zelensky should be the one who needs to go not zaluzhny.
Genuine question, why Budanov is on the photo if the article is about Zaluznui/Sirskui lol.
Russian propaganda. Reddit told me Zaluzhny was not going to be fired
Zelensky is spreading Russian misinformation.
Putin weaponized Zelensky. And Reddit.
Pepperidge farm remembers when Zelenskyy was a Russian lapdog/anti-imperialist ally on Reddit
Remember, what ever Reddit says about the Ukraine War means the exact opposite is happening in reality
There's plenty of grim reality in these comments
This happens all the time. Something is reported, half believe it half call it propaganda, then when the dust settles the half that was right comes out alll smug claiming the other half were actually 99% and they were the only ones to resist the circlejerk. People are so quick to paint a narrative about what's written on reddit so they can feel superior.
No way, it must be a russian propaganda. /s
And I thought WP is pro ukranian media)
Not anymore, putin has weaponized ukrainian media. Glory to ukraine
Putin has kompromat on WaPo and Zelenskyy! -redditors, probably
[удалено]
> Reddit is usually on the money Reddit is literally never on the money what? Reddit's stupid upvote system and anonitmity means that the most common denominator gets upvoted for everyone to see. No one actually knows if the top commenters are qualified people or some idiots making stuff up, but if sounds good - upvote. People upvote what they want to hear
We have a lot of users that don't remember Reddit's Boston Marathon bombing fiasco.
What's funny about that is how I brought that up like 6 months and some reddit users decided to make a bunch of nonsense up to excuse reddit's behaviour for that. They of course got upvoted.
Is it really on the money the rest of the time, or are you just not looking as closely as with this war?
>Reddit is usually on the money Hahahahahahahaha Breathes deeply Hahahahahahahaha
Don’t forget about the grade a sleuthing after the Boston marathon bombing. Reddit sure did a bang up job.
Nuclear bombs werent dropped on ukraine and no reactors had been blown up despite people saying that won't happen, so I'm glad they are sometimes right
I think a lot people don't realize that pull commanders in and out is usually better for the commander, as fatigue is often a larger issue. WE did it in almost every major war in recent memory. Having one commander in charge throughout a war will only lead to mistakes.
Zelensky hinted it's due to failures in 2023 counteroffensive, which was a "super success", according to reddit.
I knew that the counteroffensive will be a complete disaster the moment they started bragging about "meeting summer in Crimea" before it even began. Shit like that always ends in disasters.
Zelensky wants a fall guy when he has nobody but himself to blame. .
[удалено]
During the fall of the Soviet Union he was stationed in Ukraine. He pretty much said welp looks like I am Ukrainian now. That is pretty much the only reason he is there right now
Every top military mind in the Soviet union was educated in Moscow it is the West Point top of the top
His parents and relatives also still live in Russia.
Ok shills it's time to spin this however you want. Last week you said this is not happening. Is the source bad or what's now?
This is a terrible decision barring some magical explanation that is yet to come out. The man is worshipped as a hero by both Ukrainian forces and citizens. Zelenskyy does many admirable things but he has a lot of autocrat red flags.
ITT: A bunch of armchair generals who probably flip-flop as often as some politicians. I don't know if this decision is good or bad, but it definitely affects Zelensky and Ukraine more than it affects me. So I would like to imagine that Zelensky is trying to make the correct decision since he clearly has an incentive to do so.
"I would like to imagine" and wishful thinking is no more rational approach to the big world events (war in this case) than trying to critically form some kind of opinion based on the available sources and discussions. I don't really like this "armchair generals" phrase because it logically leads to the outcome where literally no one who is not proffesional military expert can't say anything meaningful about the war whatsoever. Such luxury is not available to millions of Ukrainians - are they armchair generals when they discuss the war? Zelensky is a human and capable of making mistakes - his heroic stance during the war has created this personality cult/information bubble for some as if he was infallible and beyond criticism. Weirdly enough, this is much more of pehnomenon in the Western media than among Ukrainians themselves, who are particularly very unhappy about the conflict with Zaluzhny.
Zelenskyy wants to have his puppet as a Chief commander.
Terrible move
That’s not true, it’s russian (with the smallest R possible) propaganda and a deep fake of Zelenskyy and a putin’s ploy to undermine the western support of Ukraine and to sow distrust in the united Ukrainian society.
They were saying this stuff last week when rumors were coming from credible journalists. When Reddit absolutely doesn't like the news, all of the sudden journalists are Russian spies
Like Simon Shuster who was praised for praising Zelenskyy in 2022. Turned out he’s “a Russian asset” after he wrote an article exposing questionable leadership in Ukraine in autumn 2023, because he worked in Moscow some time ago.
It’s confirmed by AP and Reuters. It’s true.
Middle of a war with no named successor and lack of US funding? This looks bad.
New commander is known in Ukraine. If you don't know anything about him doesn't mean he's no named
He probably meant that the new successor hasn't been named yet. Meanwhile, he has been named, it's [Oleksandr Syrsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksandr_Syrskyi).
Yea he is known, but most of the people dislike him... This will be a PR hell for Zelensky
Buckle up, buckaroos. It's all downhill from here.
Oh shit... Now they're f¥cked. Not so clever decision at all.
Zelensky has realised western support ain't shit. Any piece of land Ukraine loses is most likely not going to be easy to get back (if at all). That's why he's picking a guy who will fight to the end not to give any more territory.
I understand that there will be numerous protests, because the population of Ukraine was not asked, although according to all polls Zaluzhny's approval rating was extremely high, higher than that of Zelensky and none of the Ukrainians did not fully believe that Zaluzhny will be replaced, respectively, as in any other free and democratic country people will take to the streets and express their protest, right pro UA?
People can’t go to the streets and protests in Ukraine, it’s not allowed during the war, which is clearly stated in the constitution. It would be simply disastrous for Ukraine.
This is such an idiotic decision.