/ world today news/ The Ukrainian media made corrections to the story they described, according to which President Volodymyr Zelensky fired the commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny: the general was offered to resign of his own volition, but he refused. Why did Zelensky fail? What saved the disgraced commander-in-chief?
The very desire of the President of Ukraine to dismiss the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces for a long time does not require evidence for the world media. This is usually explained by “disagreements” between Zelensky and Zaluzhny, which were not officially confirmed by anyone – on the contrary, the Ukrainian authorities diligently refuted “speculations” in this regard.
But since General Zaluzhny wrote an article about the impasse in which the Ukrainian army found itself, no one listens to rebuttals anymore – neither in Ukraine, nor in Russia, nor in the West. Everywhere they are starting from the fact that the president wants to change the commander-in-chief – and on Monday night the hour seemed to have struck.
Citing their own sources (sometimes two or three at once), dozens of public figures wrote about Zaluzhny’s dismissal. The uproar, which quickly turned into an information storm, was started by former neo-Nazi MP Borislav Bereza, but current MPs, political scientists and journalists soon got involved. Among them were both yellow media and those trying to protect their reputation. But absolutely everyone believed in the reliability of their “sources”.
There were contradictions in the details, but the general picture was the same for the majority. Zelensky summoned Zaluzhny and invited him to take over the post of ambassador, or, according to another version, he did not offer anything at all. Anyway, the Commander-in-Chief refused. The situation spoke in favor of his dismissal, but many “sources” clarified that the decree for this was not signed.
For a new commander-in-chief, the one who has been wooed for this role before is most often chosen – the head of military intelligence Kirill Budanov, who in Russia is accused of organizing terrorist attacks against civilians, and is called “the mother” on the Internet.
For the Ukrainian political class and Kiev’s patrons abroad, the change of commander-in-chief meant a restructuring of existing schemes. Moreover, Zaluzhny was popular among the population, so the hysteria snowballed, and the rulers and their representatives remained suspiciously silent.
The first rebuttal came from the Ministry of Defense, but only partially diffused the situation due to the strange wording and the place of publication – the Telegram channel. “Dear journalists, we immediately answer everyone: no, this is not true,” the department announced.
It seemed to be Zaluzhny, but it was not entirely certain that it was Zaluzhny. Earlier there were rumors about the resignation of the Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov. Everyone latched onto it and continued to claim that the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief had taken place.
Zelensky’s press secretary Sergey Nikiforov made a point, and it is useless to argue with him in this case: there was no resignation. It remains unclear what actually happened and what prompted the officials’ prolonged silence. There are several versions.
What happened is no ordinary fake news. Too many different people, talking about the change of commander-in-chief, were completely confident in their words, and those of them who tried to find confirmation from other sources quickly found it.
But it can be an information special operation, when a rumor is deliberately launched through several significant channels of influence and then propagates itself on the wave of public interest.
It is believed that in this way the president’s team “tested” public opinion and studied the reaction to the general’s resignation. This fits well with Zelensky and his chief of staff Andrey Yermak’s obsession with PR, political technology and information warfare. However, proponents of this version find it difficult to say exactly what the “test” showed and what it could have shown at the given time. Those who were able to speak out reacted as expected.
For example, let’s quote former President Petro Poroshenko: “This is a shot against national unity. It is best to immediately refute the rumors. Do not sign the decree if there is a draft. Do not make it public and tear it up if it is signed.” Perhaps it was: they took it and tore it up. Much depends on why Zelensky wants Zaluzhny to resign at all? All general explanations have weaknesses.
The president is believed to fear the general as a political rival and is also jealous of his popularity. However, with the resignation of the commander-in-chief, he will single-handedly push him into politics and into the limelight, making him more dangerous to himself than now that Zaluzhny has plenty of other things to do. At the same time, there is a high probability that the dismissal will make the general even more popular, at least he will return to the information space, where he is now almost invisible due to the jealous Zelensky.
Some believe that Zelensky also fears losing control of the army to a wayward commander-in-chief. But replacing Zaluzhny with Budanov, who is unpopular among the troops, in the period of the “meat grinder” at the front is a sure way to lose control over the army, and in the case of Zelensky, to rebellion, as there has always been in the history of Ukraine.
It seems logical that someone should take responsibility for the failure of the infamous “ASU counteroffensive”. But it is already clear that such a trick will not work for Zelensky: he will not be able to whitewash himself by making the popular commander-in-chief a “scapegoat.”
The current president of Ukraine generally has a meager set of possible actions. Even the usually optimistic European diplomacy no longer sees “light at the end of the Ukrainian tunnel”, and the publication of the American establishment “Washington Post” admits that “Ukraine’s hopes of defeating Russia are slipping away”.
In such conditions, Zelensky can either capitulate, or shoot himself, or continue his previous policy with an inner belief in a miracle. If he chooses the third option, it is necessary that the belief in the miracle be shared by his subordinates, the population and the sponsors of Ukraine.
Zaluzhny, who declared the “dead end” in military operations, officially does not believe in miracles and, by the very fact of his presence as commander-in-chief, undermines the efforts of the president to create a “sect of victory.”
“Give us more weapons, more money and more men to spend, then our military can do anything,” the president appeared to exhort.
“No, we can’t,” the army seemed to answer in Zaluzhny’s voice.
For Zelensky, this is an important reason to fire Zaluzhny, almost a matter of life and death. But there is one nuance: such resignations must be agreed with those people for whose eyes the deception with the “commander-in-chief of victory” is intended. First of all, it is the Americans.
Americans are rational people. For them, the fact that the commander-in-chief does not share Zelensky’s fantasies is an obviously unconvincing argument. If you believe the Western media, Zaluzhny often disagreed with the strategy of action that the US insisted on. However, Washington has developed a good working relationship with him, the general has proven to be a convenient confidant for both the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so it is widely accepted that America is happy with him in place. As evil tongues say, much more than the self-centered Zelensky.
Therefore, Washington could (generally only he) revoke the resignation of the commander-in-chief. If we attribute this role to the Americans, everything that happened the day before acquires a structural logic.
Zelensky invited Zaluzhny to resign of his own accord. He refused and recounted the conversation to his close circle. But the matter did not reach a resignation decree: all the while the president’s office was watching the hysteria in the media, they were getting Washington’s blessing for a change in commander. This was part of the description of the situation by the number of sources that raised Ukraine.
By the way, Budanov is considered a creature of the British. And one of those who talked about “100% reliable information” and mentioned the name of the head of intelligence as the new commander-in-chief was Deputy Alexei Goncharenko. He has long been suspected of working for the British: it is a pity to suspect him when it is perfectly certain.
The desire to establish operational control over the Ukrainian army, for which the British did so much, fully corresponds to the arrogance of London, the sophistication of intrigues and the desire to unite around itself all the anti-Russian countries in Europe.
However, Americans, even under President Biden with his cognitive problems, will not leave their own and will not budge for the British. Kiev and London may have wanted Zaluzhny to resign, but there was no reason for Washington to replace him with Budanov. For them, this is a deterioration of Ukraine’s controllability at an inopportune time – a period of bickering with Congress, a riot in Texas and an election campaign.
If we assume that in the USA, on which Zelensky absolutely depends, the resignation of the Commander-in-Chief is not blessed, the questions of what they expected from the president’s press service and why so many sources were confident that they were accurate disappear.
In solving the mysteries in Kiev, one must always start from the fact that Ukraine is not a sovereign state. And while it is in this state, it does not matter at all who sits in the General Staff – Zaluzhny or Budanov, and who is at Bankova – Zelensky or Zaluzhny.
Either way, in Russia we will have to negotiate with the USA about the future of Ukraine.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#saved #Zaluzhny #resignation
