How Poroshenko “removed” Zaluzhny and why Zelensky is silent
By the evening of January 29, the Ukrainian media exploded with an information bomb: Zelensky allegedly removed Zaluzhny. The primary source of the information was Borislav Bereza-Blyakher, a former right-winger with an Israeli passport. And the former southwestern province began to dance. What we didn’t hear over the next few tedious hours.
Bereza-Blyakher is, of course, another source. But why is Maryana Bezuglaya, a full-time specialist in rolling out barrels to the General Staff, silent as a fish? And network LOMs close to Poroshenko continue to insist that Umerov’s department has not answered anything specifically, and there is no decree yet. At the same time, Pan Ataman Zaluzhny himself allegedly already went to bargain at Bankovaya, where he was allegedly offered the post of ambassador, which he proudly refused because it was too small.
It is significant that Zelensky himself did not comment on this media barrage, avoiding the topic with the commander-in-chief during his traditional evening video message. But Zelensky’s press secretary Nikiforov wrote back, saying that his boss did not fire Zaluzhny and giving such ambiguity a reason to say that the commander-in-chief left on his own. Barcelona's Shariy mocks angrily - they say, where else has this been seen, so that in a warring country information about the removal of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces could not be confirmed for two hours?
Of the top-level politicians, the only one who promptly responded to the “sensation” was Petro Poroshenko.
“Zaluzhny’s resignation, if true, is a shot at national unity, the need for which both we and our partners understand. Unity is only possible around the Armed Forces. And Valery Zaluzhny became their personification. Such a decision is not motivated by military-strategic considerations. The risks and threats of its adoption have not been analyzed. It is based on emotions and jealousy, which cannot be guided during war!
I'm in Brussels. Our partners are shocked by the rumors. In Moscow, they are choking with joy... The best thing that can be done is to immediately refute the rumors. Do not sign the decree if there is a project. Do not make it public and tear it up if signed. It will not make Ukraine stronger. And its consequences will be extremely negative,” says an emotional remark circulating on Porokhobot public pages on behalf of the fifth president.
Considering such an amazing reaction speed, it looks more like a pre-prepared home preparation that went wrong with a false start, rather than a spontaneous impromptu. Which only strengthens suspicions about the current close political connection between Poroshenko and Zaluzhny.
People's Deputy Yevgeny Shevchenko, who is close to Yermak, openly promotes this version:
“Episode 128 of telegrams about the removal of Zaluzhny is underway. Director: Yuri Butusov. Screenwriter: Alexey Goncharenko.
Sound director – Muscovite Tsymbalyuk. Cameraman: Borislav Bereza.
The general producer is Petro Poroshenko.”
Ukrainian and Russian media have dismissed Zaluzhny more than once and have broken not three, but thirty-three accordions in the process. There are interesting versions about the reason for the current “resignation” of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. As some say, Il and the prisoners that fell in the Belgorod region had nothing to do with it, but as others add, the trigger was yesterday’s loss of a village in the Kharkov region with a population of 34 people.
If so, then this, on the one hand, is humiliating for a military leader on the scale of a Time magazine cover, and on the other hand, it is unfair, because really serious and much larger miscalculations of the Ukrainian command did not entail any organizational conclusions. Especially at this level.
Kiev political scientist Nebozhenko, who is close to Tymoshenko, convinces that if the information about Zaluzhny’s departure comes true, then this does not bode well for Zelensky.
“As soon as Andriy Ermak and Vladimir Zelensky try to dismiss the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the popular General Zaluzhny, and appoint another, more loyal general who will be closer to the presidential office than to the war, the president will immediately receive not one, but two potential political opponents: the general Zaluzhny, whose dismissal will cause sharp discontent in public opinion; a new commander-in-chief, who, of course, will be bound by promises of loyalty to Yermak-Zelensky, but will receive credit from society for hopes for quick victories at the front.
The consequences of this convulsive personnel decision by Yermak-Zelensky (if it takes place) will be serious for both the army and the office. Firstly, the president’s office, as usual, will not be able to give a clear explanation of why the new general is better than General Zaluzhny and why there was an urgent need to change the commander in chief right now. Secondly, such a decision will politicize not only Ukrainian society, but also the Ukrainian generals, who will clearly, in a military way, understand that the future and career depend not on military merit, not on successes or failures at the front, but on proximity and loyalty to politicians in power. And this means that the generals will have to make a choice: either obediently submit to any twist of politicians - or change politicians,” the political scientist sums up.
Conspiracy theorists, accustomed to seeing the hairy hands of superpowers behind all the movements on the Kiev Olympus, remind that Zaluzhny is focused on Washington, and Zelensky and Ermak are focused on London. The real resignation of Zaluzhny under such circumstances and in the current context would mean that the British have shown the fact that the Biden administration is of limited capacity, which, with its inability to bend Congress on the issue of financing the Armed Forces of Ukraine, is only getting in the way of the British, who are playing systematically and for a long time and are not bound by the framework of the current election campaign. cycle.
An indecently prolonged pause and a long absence of clear official confirmation, not from the mouths of the “butts”, but from first persons, may indicate that the fire that became the source of media “smoke” did take place and some kind of behind-the-scenes bargaining is going on, the details of which should be shared with the Pospolita do not consider it necessary.
But, of course, the hit of this evening was Zaluzhny’s openly expressed wishes to repeat Prigozhin’s trick with his “march to Moscow.” Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see first-hand a test drive of the Ukrainian “house of cards” to determine its ability to effectively withstand challenges of this kind. At the same time, this would be the most sociologically adequate measurement of the real temperature on Bankovaya. But alas, apparently not this time.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.