After months of speculation about a rift with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi has been removed from his post, with the president saying it was “time for renewal”.
Gen Zaluzhnyi is seen as a national hero by many Ukrainians – so why has he been replaced, and will this change Ukraine’s fortunes in the war with Russia?
It is not unusual for military leadership to be rotated during an extended period of combat operations. Gen Zaluzhnyi is considered to have been instrumental in resisting the Russian invasion and is an immensely popular figure in Ukraine.
But, military leadership requires a broad spectrum of personal attributes, and popularity is not high on the list.
Wartime requires difficult decisions to be made, often at great sacrifice by those under command, placing a very heavy burden on senior commanders. Even the most hardened commanders eventually start to feel the strain.
Ukraine is the David to Russia’s superpower goliath, so Gen Zaluzhnyi was quick to embrace Western military tactics and support to avoid conventional Soviet-era attritional warfare.
The West provided high-tech precision weapons, modern battle tanks and missiles, plus combat training for Ukraine’s forces; however, the much anticipated 2023 “spring” counteroffensive failed to achieve its objectives.
More on Ukraine
Related Topics:
Image: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and former commander in chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyi. Pic: Reuters
With the benefit of hindsight, without a credible combat air capability – modern fighter jets – Ukraine was always going to struggle.
The Ukrainians fought bravely, but a war of attrition beckoned, and Gen Zaluzhnyi knew that limited resources had to be preserved.
Advertisement
With a static frontline and waning Western support, political pressure grew to make progress. This created tensions between the military and political leadership, with Gen Zaluzhnyi wary of mounting continued offensive action without Western military support.
Ukraine needed more weapons to prevail which would take time – time that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy judged Ukraine did not have.
The final straw appears to have been reached in November last year when – in a long essay and interview in The Economist magazine – Gen Zaluzhnyi said the war had reached a stalemate.
Whatever the battlefield realities, President Zelenskyy needed to breed confidence in Western allies that victory remained possible, if military equipment and ammunition were forthcoming.
Recognising that Ukraine was in a stalemate, with Russia still occupying 20% of Ukraine’s territory, was unhelpful.
So, President Zelenskyy decided on a change of approach and strategy.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:34
Kyiv hit by missile and drone strikes
However, in the circumstances, the decision to replace the popular head of the Ukrainian military will have carried risk.
Military coups occur when the military loses faith with their political masters, and it is evident that President Zelenskyy and Gen Zaluzhnyi have very different views about the next stage of the war.
But, after weeks of rumours, eventually a smooth transition has been agreed.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The new head of Ukraine’s armed forces is 58-year-old Colonel-General Oleksandr Syrskyi, an older and even more battle-hardened officer.
But, since Gen Syrskyi will inherit the same military shortcomings that challenged his predecessor, it is hard to see how this change will have a significant impact on the battlefield.
Gen Syrskyi also has less experience with Western military doctrine that underpins most Western hi-tech munitions.
As for Zaluzhnyi, analysts have long speculated about whether he could one day emerge as a political rival to President Zelenskyy in future elections.
General Eisenhower – the supreme commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe in the Second World War – had no apparent political ambitions at the end of the war, yet became the 34th president of the US just a few years later.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:19
Can Ukraine win the war against Russia?
However, at this stage, it looks unlikely that Gen Zaluzhnyi would seek political office until the war with Russia is over.
Gen Zaluzhnyi has proven a popular and capable wartime leader and will be a very hard act to follow.
But, sometimes a change brings fresh perspectives and opportunities, and President Zelenskyy will be hoping that this change heralds a change of fortunes for Ukraine’s war with Russia.
However, time is not on President Zelenskyy’s side, and he will probably need rather more than a change in military leadership to turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favour.
Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.
Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.
Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.
Image: This doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory
“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.
“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.
“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”
More on Nato
Related Topics:
Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.
Image: Border between EU and the Russian Federation
He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.
Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.
We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.
Image: Aegis Ashore Poland
Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.
They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.
“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.
NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.
“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.
“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”
With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.
But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.
They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.
Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.
On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.
But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.
In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.
“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.
Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.
Asian markets have reacted positively after Donald Trump paused his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on most of America’s trading partners for 90 days, despite the US president increasing those on China to 125%.
However, Japan’s Nikkei share average was up 8.2% by 3.50am BST, while the broader Topix had risen 7.5%.
Similarly, the S&P 500 stock index had jumped 9.5% and global markets bounced back following Mr Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that the increased tariffs on nearly all trading partners would now be paused.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said the “90-day pause” was for the “more than 75 countries” who had not retaliated against his tariffs “in any way”.
He added that during this period they would still have to pay a “substantially lowered” 10% tariff, which is “effective immediately”.
It is lower than the 20% tariff that Mr Trump had set for goods from the European Union, 24% on imports from Japan and 25% on products from South Korea.
The UK was already going to face a blanket 10% tariff under the new system.
Mr Trump said the increased 125% tariff on imported goods from China was “effective immediately”.
He added: “At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realise that the days of ripping off the USA, and other countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable.”
What’s in Trump’s tariff pause?
Here’s what Donald Trump’s tariff pause entails:
‘Reciprocal’ tariffs on hold
• Higher tariffs that took effect today on 57 trading partners will be paused for 90 days
• These include the EU, Japan and South Korea, all of which will face a baseline 10% duty instead
• Countries that already had a 10% levy imposed since last week – such as the UK – aren’t affected by the pause
China tariffs increased
• Trump imposed a higher 125% tariff on China
• That’s in addition to levies he imposed during his first term
• China had hit the US with 84% tariff earlier today, following tit-for-tat escalations
No change for Canada or Mexico
• Canadian and Mexican goods will remain subject to 25% fentanyl-related tariffs if they don’t comply with the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement’s rules of origin
• Compliant goods are exempt
Car and metal tariffs remain
• Trump’s pause doesn’t apply to the 25% tariffs he levied on steel and aluminium in March and on cars (autos) on 3 April
• This 25% tariff on car parts does not come into effect until 3 May
Sectors at risk
• Copper, lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical minerals are expected to be subject to separate tariffs, in the same way autos are
Hours after Mr Trump announced the pause on tariffs for most countries, a White House official clarified that this did not apply to the 25% duties imposed on some US imports from Mexico and Canada.
The tariffs were first announced in February and Mexico and Canada were not included in the “Liberation Day” announcements.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
It meant tariffs of 84% would be enforced on US goods – up from the 34% China had previously planned.
Image: Mr Trump spoke to reporters in the Oval Office. Pic: Reuters
China ‘want to make a deal’
Asked why he posted “BE COOL” on Truth Social hours before announcing his tariff pause, Mr Trump told reporters at the White House: “I thought that people were jumping a little bit out of line.”
“They were getting yippy, you know, were getting a little bit yippy, a little bit afraid,” he added.
Mr Trump continued: “China wants to make a deal, they just don’t know how to go about it.
“[They’re] quite the proud people, and President Xi is a proud man. I know him very well, and they don’t know quite how to go about it, but they’ll figure it out.
“They’re in the process of figuring out, but they want to make a deal.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the walk back was part of a grand negotiating strategy by Mr Trump.
“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” she said, adding that the news media “clearly failed to see what President Trump is doing here”.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also insisted Mr Trump had strengthened his hand through his tariffs.
“President Trump created maximum negotiating leverage for himself,” he said.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Mr Bessent said Mr Trump decided to raise tariffs on China because Beijing hadn’t reached out to the US and instead increased its own levies on US goods.
Downing Street said that the UK will “coolly and calmly” continue its negotiations with the US.
A Number 10 spokeswoman said: “A trade war is in nobody’s interests. We don’t want any tariffs at all, so for jobs and livelihoods across the UK, we will coolly and calmly continue to negotiate in Britain’s interests.”
Along the thin strip of beach and woodland known as the Vistula Spit which marks the northernmost demarcation between Poland and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, there is not much in the way of a border.
Just some torn wire fencing and a few rotten posts which seem to stagger drunkenly into the shallows of the Baltic Sea.
Beneath a sign barring entry, we find a couple of empty bottles of Russian cognac and vodka.
Image: This doesn’t feel like the edge of NATO territory
“I don’t see much protection. It’s not good,” says Krzysztof from Katowice, who has come to inspect the border himself.
“We have to have some kind of scare tactic, something to show that we are trying to strengthen our army,” says Grzegorz, who lives nearby.
“At the same time I think I would not base the defence of our country solely on our army. I am convinced that Europe or America, if anything were to happen, will help us 100%.”
More on Nato
Related Topics:
Poland is investing massively in its defence, with military spending set to hit 4.7% of GDP in 2025, more than any other NATO country.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said he will introduce voluntary military training for men of any age, and women too should they wish, so the army has a competent reserve force in the event of war.
Image: Border between EU and the Russian Federation
He is investing $2.5bn in stronger border fortifications between Russia and Belarus, a project called East Shield which will include anti-tank obstacles, bunkers and potentially minefields too.
Along with its Baltic neighbours, Poland is withdrawing from the Ottawa convention against the use of land mines. It hasn’t committed to using them, but it wants to have that option.
We’ve been granted access to one of the cornerstones of Polish, and European defence, which is a couple of hours drive from the Vistula spit at the Redowicze military base.
Image: Aegis Ashore Poland
Aegis Ashore Poland, together with its sister site in Romania, are the land-based arms of NATO’s missile defence shield over Europe, which is run by the US navy.
They are symbols of the US commitment to NATO and to the protection of Europe.
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
And despite changes at the top of the Pentagon it is “business as usual”, says Captain Michael Dwan who oversees air and missile defence within the US Sixth Fleet.
“Our mission to work with NATO forces has been unchanged. And so our commitment from the United States perspective and what capability we bring to ballistic missile defence and the defence of NATO is championed here in Poland.”
Image: The control room at Aegis Ashore Poland
As far as Russia is concerned, NATO’s two missile defence bases in Romania and Poland represent a NATO threat on their doorstep and are therefore a “priority target for potential neutralisation”, per Russia’s foreign ministry.
NATO says the installations are purely defensive and their SM-3 interceptor missiles are not armed and are not intended to carry warheads. Russia counters they could easily be adapted to threaten Russia.
“It’s not a matter of moving offensive weapons here into the facility, the hardware and the infrastructure is simply not installed.
“It would take months or years to change the mission of this site and a significant amount of money and capability and design.”
With so much marked “secret” on the site, it seems amazing to be granted the access.
But for NATO, transparency is part of deterrence. They want potential adversaries to know how sophisticated their radar and interception systems are.
They know that if they carried warheads on site, that would make them a target so they don’t.
Deterrence also depends on whether potential adversaries believe in the US’s commitment to NATO and to Europe’s defence.
On an operational level, as far as the troops are concerned, that commitment may still be iron-clad.
But as far as its commander-in-chief goes, there is still – as with so much around Donald Trump’s presidency – a great deal of uncertainty.
In the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon President Trump suggested he might bundle a potential US troop drawdown in Europe together with the issue of EU trade and tariffs.
“Nice to wrap it up in one package,” he said, “it’s nice and clean”.
Probably not the way Europe sees it, not with a resurgent Russia on their doorstep, economic tailwinds breeding animosity and the notion of Pax Americana crumbling at their feet.