Level of commander-in-chief isn’t about sending company to secure Pokrovsk. Syrskyi doesn’t understand that, - Krotevych
There should be a certain system in the army, but it shouldn't be an authoritarian one.
This was stated by Bohdan Krotevych, former chief of staff of the 12th Special Forces Brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine "Azov," in an interview with Censor.NET.
What is known?
"I am completely opposed to the position of Commander-in-Chief. I believe that Ukraine should have a Chief of the General Staff, and that’s it. Furthermore, we should establish a General Staff of the Ukrainian Defense Forces—which does not yet exist—to include the commanders of the National Guard, the Air Force, and so on.
We have a systemic problem here. If we eliminate the position of Commander-in-Chief and retain the Chief of the General Staff, the approach will be slightly different. Of course, in theory, the Chief of the General Staff could effectively become the Commander-in-Chief, but it still represents a different approach to the work," Krotevych explained.
He noted that a commander’s job is to issue orders. And the job of his chief of staff and the entire structure is to figure out how to carry them out.
"As I understand it, the president is the Commander-in-Chief who sets the objectives, and the Chief of the General Staff must figure out how to achieve them. That’s all! In other words, the Commander-in-Chief’s role is not to send a company, for example, to secure Pokrovsk. Syrskyi simply doesn’t understand this," he added.
Read the interview with Bohdan Krotevych for Censor.NET at the link
