In the West they told how the confrontation between Zelensky and Zaluzhny would turn out

“Politicians and oligarchs are again looking after their own interests”

Vladimir Zelensky’s dismissal of his commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine highlighted differences that had previously remained muted, writes the British publication The Guardian, characterizing the situation in Ukraine as “military-political confusion.”

Politics does not end during military conflicts, even when it is consumed by more pressing, existential issues, The Guardian editorial says. As time passed, Winston Churchill’s wartime leadership may seem impenetrable, but in fact criticism became so loud that the House of Commons survived two votes of confidence in 1942.

Although, The Guardian writes, some compare Vladimir Zelensky to Churchill, the Ukrainian president should be grateful that he has not yet encountered anything similar. The “rally around the flag” effect created a “surprisingly strong mood of national unity,” the British publication said. Even those who criticized the decisions or behavior of people around President Zelensky avoided questioning his own actions. But by the fall of last year it became clear that politics was returning to the country. The situation is still far from normal. But Zelensky’s decision to fire Ukraine’s respected commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny on Thursday heightened tensions, The Guardian reports.

Zelensky assures that politics did not play any role in this. But he did not explain the move, citing only the need to “renew” the armed forces. Disagreements between military personnel over strategy and tactics were well known, and last week it was widely reported that the Ukrainian president had demanded the resignation of General Zaluzhny. Military decisions, The Guardian points out, can also be political and economic – such as Zaluzhny’s desire to mobilize half a million troops. which his boss considered unrealistic.

The Ukrainian president was also reportedly irritated when his general said in an interview late last year that the military standoff with Russia had reached a stalemate. This was seen as useless diplomatic pressure to increase arms supplies and as an entry into the political arena. According to The Guardian, General Zaluzhny is “popular” in Ukraine and his aides have discussed a future political career, even though the showman says he denied interest in a new biography of Zelensky from journalist Simon Schuster.

It is difficult to imagine that the change of command will change Ukraine’s fate on the battlefield, not least because the commander of the Ukrainian ground forces, Alexander Syrsky, who replaced General Zaluzhny, has a mixed record and, at best, a mixed reputation among military personnel, The Guardian notes.

But, curiously, it is also difficult to see much political gain for Zelensky. General Syrsky is seen as a man of the Kyiv president and has no political ambitions. General Zaluzhny will be out of the picture, but equally will not take the blame for any future military shortcomings. His departure also encourages debate about whether Ukraine’s president is willing to accept having his decisions questioned.

While some Western officials have expressed concerns about the personnel changes, General Zaluzhny’s removal is more likely to be a pretext than a reason for US Republicans to block further aid as disputes continue over the $60 billion aid package. This is, first of all, an internal problem, notes The Guardian.

As the conflict in Ukraine continues, casualties mount and hopes of a breakthrough fade, it is not surprising that the murmurs are increasing, that control over Kyiv’s decisions is becoming more visible and that politicians and oligarchs are once again looking out for their own interests.