ZELENSKYY IS AGAINST ZALUZHNYI: CONSEQUENCES
Today we are streaming on the road, in Donbas. On this day, exactly two years ago, "Butusov Plus" channel was created. Thanks to your support, we are working, and we are very grateful, friends, for this great honour.
Today, the topic of our stream is the actions of President Zelenskyy and the President's Office to change the military leadership of Ukraine. As you know - from the publications of the Ukrainian media, I've written about this several times, all the world's leading media - the Times, the Financial Times, the BBC - the Ukrainian authorities, that is, President Zelenskyy, the President's Office, are planning to dismiss the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi.
ON 29 JANUARY, ZELENSKYY OFFERED ZALUZNYI HIS RESIGNATION
According to unofficial sources, on 29 January, Zelenskyy invited Zaluzhnyi and Defence Minister Umierov to a meeting and offered Zaluzhnyi to resign voluntarily. According to the sources, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces refused. And now the Office is building a scheme to organise Zaluzhnyi against his will.
Now, as we know, consultations are underway at all levels, and the authorities are trying to show that the removal of Zaluzhnyi is not just a political decision, but a systemic decision, and there will be changes in the promotion of commanders in various parts of the Armed Forces.
WHY DID THE MILITARY LEADERSHIP NEED TO CHANGE?
Well, let's see what the results will be. What is obvious at the moment? The decision is political, as President Zelenskyy himself made exclusively political claims against Valerii Zaluzhnyi.
As you know, in an interview with the British "Sun", Zelenskyy said that Zaluzhnyi was too much involved in politics, he was politicised. And not at his press conference, President Zelenskyy said that Valerii likes likes, hinting that the Commander-in-Chief is too media-friendly, in his opinion.
We do not hear any complaints from the President about the work of the General Command of the Armed Forces. There are no personal comments. So for now, the political version of these decisions will be the main one. We understand why the president decided not to dismiss Zaluzhnyi right away. Now, from what we can see, there is an active selection of candidates and discussions are underway about who can replace Zaluzhnyi and his team in the General Staff, and about other leaders who can be replaced. The situation is ambiguous. Why? Because it would be one thing if Zaluzhnyi resigned himself. And it's another thing when you remove him, and he doesn't support it. As you know, since 29 January and all this time, Valerii Zaluzhny has not commented on all this information, personnel decisions, statements by the President's Office. All this is absolutely not commented on. No decisions have been announced. But we understand that Zaluzhnyi himself does not understand the situation, he can neither refute nor confirm the information from the sources. And so we see that the situation remains uncertain.
This uncertainty, I think, is the main problem we have in the government, in the state. Because wine, and the modern world in general, needs consistency, needs clear, predictable decisions. And now we see a kind of kindergarten, when the president wants to force Zaluzhnyi, to push him to leave the army during active hostilities.
Is it possible to change Valerii Zaluzhnyi and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces during the war? Of course, according to the Constitution, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, President Zelenskyy, is responsible for the defence of Ukraine. Therefore, this is his authority, this is his legal right. He can change the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine by his own decision, by his own decree. So, of course, these are Zelensky's powers, if we are talking about the legal side. On the factual side, is it possible to change the military leadership in principle? Of course, it is possible, and of course, the performance of our military command is not perfect either, we have a lot of problems in the army that are not being solved. But here we just have to be honest: if it is easy to replace Zaluzhnyi, will it change anything in the army or not? Will there be any changes? Because now, if this is a purely political component and Zaluzhnyi is disliked solely from a political and informational point of view, what conclusions will be drawn from this dismissal? What qualitative changes will be made? If you dismiss leaders like this and don't make any comments, don't say what needs to be changed in the army, will the next leader do it? Will the new team do it? I am not saying now that the president should explain all changes publicly. But if there are any comments, they should be formulated at the Chief of Staff. They should be in the form of regulations, orders, decisions, comments, directives. Then questions really arise to the leaders.
WHAT COMMENTS DO YOU HAVE ON ZALUSHNYI?
Now, unfortunately, what we see is that resignations and personnel changes in the leadership of the Armed Forces are being considered (inaudible) Zaluzhnyi (inaudible) let's remove him because his rating is higher than the president's. Let's appoint someone who will not be the president's rating (inaudible). But at the same time, someone who will be popular enough to be able to say that, you see, Zaluzhnyi has an adequate replacement. To be honest, I think this approach to managing the defence forces is very primitive and not true. We need to think about combat effectiveness. To do this, we need to appoint not more or less media people, but people who introduce some new practices of commanding troops, who try to correct mistakes, who try to introduce modern tactics of using drones, electronic warfare, electronic intelligence, who demonstrate the results we see. And now, to be honest, I don't see any such desire to radically change anything in our work. For example, what is the main problem we have with our army at the strategic level?
PROBLEMS OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN THE ARMY
At the strategic level, the army's main problem is the lack of a single chain of command and a single centre of responsibility. Does the army have responsibility? They are losing one city at a time - Bakhmut, Soledar, Sievierodonetsk, Lysychansk. Now the situation in Avdiivka is critical. Is anyone responsible for this? Is there any analysis, analysis of why, who is to blame? What are the solutions? No, there is not. There are excuses, but there is no objective analysis. It is not done. So now replacing one person with another person in uniform in the army - what is the purpose of this? What is the purpose? For example, some other person is appointed to replace Zaluzhnyi. And what is the main problem with the lack of responsibility? The army is actually divided into two parts, which are directly controlled by the President's Office. That is, there is Syrskyi's army. This is one military command and control centre. The OSGT commanded by General Syrskyi is not controlled by General Zaluzhnyi, it has its own procedures and capabilities. We have the same autonomy in various other branches of the armed forces. The Air Force, the Airborne Forces, the Logistics Forces, which are personally supervised by the President's Office. The Special Operations Forces, where leaders are appointed and dismissed without any involvement at all, and no one even asks the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces who to appoint.
The Defence Intelligence of Ukraine is actually an independent army - it has artillery, tanks and everything you need. That is, our main problem is that the army lacks one vertical - I'm not talking about management. It's responsibility, first of all. There is a lack of responsibility. And who created this? Did Zaluzhnyi create it? He himself is actually in charge of one of the branches of this fragmented military power. Will changing his surname change anything? This is a question rather for the Supreme Commander-in-Chief - is there a military officer to whom the Supreme Commander-in-Chief is ready to give all the powers in the Defence Forces? And then not to interfere in individual cases somewhere in different military structures. Are Zelenskyy and Yermak, who is also running the country on his behalf, capable of delegating all responsibility and authority to a leader in the army? This is the main question. And not which name will be in Zaluzhnyi's place. This is the main issue. And this responsibility is lacking at the front at various levels. Because all our bosses, including generals, are used to having problems - pointing fingers at each other, which is not easy to understand, fighting each other with internal investigations. And in all our reports, only one person is responsible for the defeats - the soldier. It is the soldier who pays for everything. And the soldier (unintelligible). And there is no such responsibility at the highest level. And until such a vertical of responsibility is created by Commander-in-Chief Zelenskyy himself, this is a question for him, no matter who he is going to put in charge. Trust, if we don't change the management system at the strategic level, then the trust in anyone who comes to replace Zaluzhnyi will be much less. Much less.
The situation at the front is difficult. A change in the chair will not change anything. Absolutely nothing. We won't see any changes if we just change the chairs. We need to change the system of responsibility. And we need to meet the needs of the army. We are not building strategic defence lines in any direction. At least half as much as the enemy does. There are no concrete structures, no systematically dug positions. There are no reinforced dugouts, trenches, trenches that would be protected, covered reliably from drones, camouflaged, and could protect infantry at least from being hit by field artillery, 120mm mortars, 122mm howitzers. All this is not available. That's why our enemy quickly breaks down positions in any direction and advances. No one is digging strategic defence lines. There are no strategic decisions. There is no allocation of resources. Do we have any replenishment at the front, any mobilisation? No, we don't. The law on mobilisation (unclear) Commander-in-Chief Zelenskyy is responsible under the Constitution and the law on mobilisation. He is not doing it. And how can the army function if it is not replenished with people? The situation in Avdiivka is critical now. The command of the 110th Brigade is competent, but it is not given the necessary number of replenishments, and the enemy is outnumbered many times over. That's why they can advance somehow. Without replenishment, it won't happen either. No commander can perform a miracle. That is, we need systemic solutions that we change in the army. Unfortunately, we do not see this.
Therefore, we expected decisions to be made at the meeting, but we have not heard anything about them yet. Let's hope so. But I want to tell you that if the government thinks that changing the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces is just a political game, that it's just a matter of replacing one (unintelligible) and then another commander-in-chief will be applauded over time, this is such a disconnect from reality... It's just scary. People don't understand how terrible the consequences are. The people who make decisions on Bankova Street in comfortable offices, where the bomb shelters are safe, do not realise what the realities of war are. Unfortunately. And they don't want to realise it, unfortunately. They want to play in the media. They want applause. They want ratings. They don't think about how the war is actually waged technologically. This is our biggest problem.
I hope that the President's Office is now thinking about what to do with Zaluzhnyi every day, and they are discussing options now. Different scenarios are being discussed. Candidates are being discussed. Extensive consultations are taking place not only with the Chiefs of the General Staff and the Commander-in-Chief, but also at various other levels of the military hierarchy. It is all discussed, who should be appointed where. But if we do not change the very principle that our army should be built, first of all, to determine responsibility, who is responsible for a particular area and receives all the powers and forces there, if the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of our generals, what losses they have suffered, what losses the enemy has suffered, what confirms the enemy's losses, why our losses are so high, what has been done to reduce our losses, increase the effectiveness of use, if there is no such objective control of evaluation criteria, then it will also be random, we will guess like this, finger in the wind, where it blows, who is pretty.
Yes, you can't talk about victory (inaudible) like you would on stage (inaudible). It was possible in the 95th quarter - you gave one person the right to say such lines, and another person the right to say such lines, and they agreed on the stage. Well, this is war. It is, above all, a responsibility for life. We need commanders who know how to carry out tasks and protect people's lives at the same time. Those who think tactically, not just as media figures. Unfortunately, this is the main problem. And no Commander-in-Chief can solve this problem. The solution is only the work itself and the changes that the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Volodymyr Zelenskyy has to make in himself, in his thinking. First of all, the problems in the army depend on him. Because it is he who defines the problems in the army in the first place. It is he who defines the political framework, directs material and human resources to the army, and evaluates the work of commanders. Someone has to be punished objectively for some shortcomings and failures, and someone has to be rewarded objectively. This is what is needed. So, dear friends, let's wait for the decision. The President's Office is doing a lot to make personnel changes in the army. I think they will take place in the near future, so Zelenskyy and the Office are talking about and preparing this process.
But so far, we have not seen the opposite (unintelligible). I just hope that the authorities will start thinking and working for the Victory, not for PR. And now, dear friends, let's move on to answering questions.
SHOULD WE WITHDRAW FROM AVDIIVKA?
Vitaliy 245: German "Bild" wrote that there is a discussion about whether to leave Avdiivka now. It seems that Zaluzhnyi is for it, Zelenskyy is against it. How true does this scenario seem to you? Is it really better to withdraw, so that, as you said, we don't have to sing "Fortress Avdiivka" later?
First of all, friends. I think that what the German Bild said has nothing to do with reality. I think that such a discussion is basically impossible. Avdiivka is a strategic communication hub, a defence hub in Donbas. It is categorically unprofitable for us to surrender Avdiivka. Because the next frontiers will be in very uncomfortable terrain, in very uncomfortable conditions. Myrnohrad, Pokrovsk, Kurakhovo will be frontline towns. With the fall of Avdiivka, a very large section of our frontline will fall. It is unprofitable for us to let this happen. That's why I think Zaluzhnyi and all the leaders understand that we need to do everything possible to hold Avdiivka. As far as I know, decisions are being made. Not all of them are perfect. Our troops are doing everything to hold Avdiivka. This is determined by the objective tactical operational situation. We need Avdiivka. I have said many times that Avdiivka is much more important for our defence in Donbas than even Bakhmut. That is, it is a very important place for us and a very important city for the enemy. Is it possible to hold Avdiivka? I want to tell you that there are such possibilities. The situation does not seem hopeless. The enemy has many times greater losses. The enemy is also very exhausted. The enemy outnumbers us in terms of reserves and marching replenishment of their assault groups. But there are no hopeless situations there. Avdiivka lacks, first of all, of course, high-quality command and control at the operational and tactical level, so that all units can interact, and, no less important, fresh, trained reserves. All the problems in the defence are related to the fact that the main brigade that holds the perimeter of the city, the 110th Mechanised Brigade, has been fighting heroically since March 22 without any rotations. It does not receive the necessary replenishment. And people even have big problems with rest (inaudible). The absence of fresh people, trained people who are ready to fight, and there are enough of them, simply does not allow us to completely defeat and drive back the enemy in all these areas where they have joined our defence in the city perimeter. But all this depends on the strategic decisions of the Ukrainian command.
DISMISSAL DUE TO THE BIGUS-INFO SCANDAL
Question: The situation with the journalists from Bigus.
This situation is a little bit complicated, but I'll say it briefly. As far as I know, our colleagues are preparing, as we see it, an investigation into the illegal surveillance of journalists and the publication on the Internet of the data of operational surveillance of journalists. This is a criminal offence in itself. Illegal surveillance is a criminal offence. And the publication of data from operational covert investigative actions is also a crime. A criminal offence for which there is a prison sentence. After the video with journalists and their private lives was released on 16 January, a series of tumultuous events followed. First. The Prosecutor General's Office held a closed briefing. They stated that they had not authorised the surveillance of Bigus.info journalists. Secondly, on 31 January, President Zelenskyy suddenly fired Roman Semenchenko, the head of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood of the Security Service of Ukraine. By the way, I immediately wrote about this, saying that the first suspects in this surveillance were Roman Semenchenko's department, because there is a special department for surveillance of journalists. Well, it's called something. But there is a whole department there. Obviously, this was an operation that could have involved people, SSU officers from Roman Semenchenko's side. And on 31 January, Roman Semenchenko was dismissed from his post by a decree of President Zelenskyy. Yes, the president appointed him and the president removed him. Roman Semenchenko is very close to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he has his support and respect. Because Semenchenko was lustrated, but Zelenskyy, in violation of the lustration law, appointed him as his representative in the (unintelligible). And he represented the interests of the president, who appointed Semenchenko as the head of the Department for the Protection of National Statehood on 22 October.
What Semenchenko did during the war, as we can see, was to put video cameras in the bedrooms of journalists, including women, to film everything that people were doing there and then edit the stories. Then they added the wiretapping data to the story and posted it on the Internet. That's the "protection of national statehood" in quotation marks. For taxpayers' money. There is a war going on here. There are SSU officers, its units, who are fighting and suffering losses. And here, I was told that there are about 400 employees in this department of the SBU in the central office alone, in Kyiv alone. Imagine that. Almost a whole battalion of healthy adult men. Most of them are officers. All of them are military men. Instead of fighting, they receive medals for snooping around hotels in Kyiv, and snooping illegally. And they do it so stupidly that even President Zelenskyy fired Semenchenko. He did not fire him for a crime. For a crime, Semenchenko should be put on trial, a criminal case should be opened. But Semenchenko was fired because he was caught. This is the problem. He got caught, he gave himself away.
He brought a lot of people, he was recorded. This is an example of the president's personnel decisions. He appointed Semenchenko in October 22. It turned out that as a professional, he was an absolute zero, a bungler who gave President Zelensky himself away, gave the entire operation away to spy on journalists. He exposed himself. This is the primitive intellectual level of a person. An absolutely inept leader. But the president likes him. The president appointed him to this position by his decree. This is a very big risk that, unfortunately, the Defence Forces will not appoint leaders on the basis of the principle that the president likes some fool. This is a big risk. So this is the situation. We are now waiting for the investigation by Bigus.info. They have identified a large number of people who installed the cameras from the video footage. Now they are carrying out a procedure to identify them so that it can be clearly established who exactly did it. So that later, you know, after the war or now, these employees don't come home and tell their children or their wives: you know, we are defending Ukraine. No, their loved ones should know that these people are not doing anything to defend Ukraine. They are snooping in the interests of the authorities, fulfilling a banal order from the President's Office, fighting against freedom of speech, illegally wiretapping and surveilling Ukrainian citizens. Ordinary citizens who are neither spies nor criminals, who have not been charged or suspected. And crowds of SSU officers simply eat up state money, as we have seen in Semenchenko's department, in order to simply please Volodymyr Oleksandrovich, to flatter his ego.
WHO IS THE REPLACEMENT FOR ZALUZHNYI?
Next question. (unintelligible) Zaluzhnyi
There are many options. All this, all these combinations exist in the minds of two people. These are Zelenskyy and Yermak. Who do they want? It could be anything. There is no such formal logic there anymore. I told you that no one is talking about logic. If the president had somehow formulated what characteristics, what traits he requires from the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, then we could have said who fits these characteristics. But there is no such choice. There is, the candidacy of Oleksandr Syrskyi is being discussed, the candidacy of Kyrylo Budanov is being discussed, the candidacy of Oleksandr Pavliuk is being discussed. Different generals. But there may be other candidates. Unfortunately, the Office does not treat this as a responsible government job. It's just a media game. And who can be a media figure? They can have anyone.
Next. Mark. Mark, thank you for your support. Question from Mark: Why did Zelenskyy start this story with Zaluzhnyi's dismissal if he doesn't know who to replace him? Or is this another test of the mood in society?
I said it at the beginning of the programme, and I want to emphasise it again. On 29 January, Zaluzhnyi was offered a voluntary resignation. And Zelenskyy thought it was a good story. As far as I know, Zaluzhnyi was offered ambassadorships in European countries, in NATO, which is a nice, comfortable position. You sit back, sleep peacefully, get paid. No air raids. But I think that Zelenskyy did not expect that (inaudible) any person, that it would be simply dishonourable, so to speak. So, of course, other systemic solutions are needed. We need the president's decisions if he wants to do something. And then the implementation of plan B began. They first create a problem. And after they created the problem, they started to solve it. Now we see that there is a ride going on: the whole government is discussing who to replace. Everyone is running to the office and the president is sitting there, I don't know, probably writing down all the options on a piece of paper, probably like in a crossword puzzle, there are hundreds of these options, dozens of these options, at least. People are playing at war. They are really playing. Instead of acting systematically, preparing and announcing the result, they are arranging... it's really a show. A political show.
Libert: Comment on Zaluzhnyi's latest article on the new strategy of war.
To be honest, I didn't see anything new there about the strategy of war. Quite a few general words.... I can't say. It's good that things are declared there. But everything that is said there is quite well-known. To be honest, I don't know the purpose of this article. I think it's about some kind of... It's addressed to a Western audience, because it was published on the CNN website. Perhaps it is some kind of information message aimed at the Western audience, at our partners, at allocating additional funds. It's hard for me to say. From a practical point of view, this article contains quite general things. There is nothing much to comment on. I don't see anything for myself, anyway.
Katya: Will there be another big offensive?
A new big offensive... There will be an offensive. The offensive is continuing. This is an offensive by Russian troops against Ukraine. And our big problem is that we cannot stop this offensive. And Ukraine cannot stop it because we have no strategic defence lines. We are not equipping them. State-owned construction companies, municipal construction companies, and private construction companies do not work on building defence structures. The State Special Transport Service units have only been involved in equipping defensive positions for the last month. They do not have the necessary equipment or the number of people to do this on the required scale. And the scale of engineering work required is enormous. That's why we don't have enough people at the front, we don't have enough attack aircraft, because we are exhausting people and suffering heavy losses due to the lack of prepared defence lines. I've been talking about this a lot, I've been talking and writing about it for two years now, and I always - there are always defenders of the government who say: how can you equip defensive positions on the first line of defence? It's impossible. Well, okay. You don't want to be on the first line, or it's impossible, really objectively, because the enemy is nearby. But now the enemy is advancing in some areas, in Kupyansk, and has already advanced. In six months, it has pushed our troops back up to 10 km in some areas, and those positions that were deep in the rear have now become the frontline again. So what's stopping us? We still have to dig. We will stop the Russian offensive and we will be able to plan... we will be able to plan our offensive only after we stop the Russian offensive. And we will stop the Russian offensive only when we have equipped strategic defensive positions like this. Deeply echeloned, protected from artillery. At least from light artillery, field artillery, battalion artillery, regimental artillery up to 122 mm. Protected from drones, camouflaged. Which can provide normal conditions of service and combat for the personnel, for people. Then the Russian offensive will stop. Not before that. Only then can we talk about an offensive. Our political leadership always wants to see reasons for optimism, that we are advancing somewhere. But this is impossible in reality, we don't have the resources for it, we don't have the people for it. We need to equalise the difference in our combat capabilities between Russia and Ukraine. This can only be done if our troops rely on reliable, deeply echeloned positions that must be constantly improved, deepened, dug new ones, backup, false ones, everything must be constantly equipped. Only then will there be a result. Not before. So let's not dream about the unrealisable, about advances. Let's lay the foundation. Let's build it both on the active frontline, which is about 800 kilometres, and along the state border, where we also have no systemic defensive positions
Larysa Sandra: did Victoria Nuland's visit bring anything?
This is also a popular question. People think that, just as Ukraine used to be ruled from Moscow, now everything has changed and someone is directing us from Washington. Friends, there is no Washington regional committee. The Americans interact with the Ukrainian authorities on an institutional basis. They work with the government that the Ukrainian people have elected. Visits by representatives of the US State Department do not mean that they can give instructions here, replace someone, remove someone. This does not happen. Therefore, we should not think that the Americans will be in charge of us, responsible for our defence. Our defence of the country is the sole responsibility of our elected Ukrainian government and each of us, the citizens, the Ukrainian people. That's it. You and I are the people who need Ukraine and who are responsible for it. There are no others. Others can help us and advise us, but that's it.
Lolita(?): If Zaluzhnyi is dismissed, who do you think is the best replacement? Syrskyi?
I say it again. The main problem is the fragmentation of power, not the names. Fragmentation of the military chain of command. There is no single chain of command in the army. There is no such thing anywhere else. How is it possible to create several leadership verticals in the army during a war? This is absurd. The question here is not about names. It is the president who must say whom he trusts. I know several competent Ukrainian generals. And if we had a vertical of responsibility, the question would be - we would choose with you who is more competent in this position, who can make more changes, then we would have a professional conversation. (unintelligible) we would evaluate the achievements of one general, another. And so they all exist in this chaos, administering, some better, some worse. Yes, there are better people. But if there is a new commander in such conditions, as Zaluzhnyi worked, there will be the same dissatisfaction of the Office, the same problems and the same lack of results that we need to protect Ukraine. This is the problem.
Bohdan D.: Is it possible to appoint Redis?
Friends, unfortunately, I do not think that the government can even consider the possibility that the commander of the 12th Brigade of the Azov National Guard, Denys Prokopenko, will be appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. In fact, as far as I know, Denis Prokopenko wants to fight. He is not interested in positions that are currently very far from the war, which are highly politicised. He is interested in work and service here, at the front. But he deserves to be promoted to a (unintelligible) position related to the management of hostilities at the front
Vasyl: new draft law on mobilisation (unintelligible)
This is a sad story. Just as we talk about the construction of defence lines, strategic defence lines, and they are not being built, so is mobilisation. We are talking about the draft law on mobilisation, which has not been adopted for two years. And it still hasn't been adopted. And nobody knows, friends. With the draft law on mobilisation, everything happened in the same way as with the dismissal of Zaluzhnyi. The President, who was supposed to draft and submit this bill to the Verkhovna Rada, refused to do it himself. He summoned Prime Minister Shmyhal and said: I will not submit this unpopular bill, you will. Shmyhal went with this draft law, introduced it secretly, without press conferences, without explanations, and threw it into the Cabinet of Ministers. The draft law got to the Rada. All the deputies were horrified. The Cabinet was horrified. After that, we decided to postpone it. There was a lot of criticism, so we're not going to do anything. So at first we did. We received criticism. And then we started (unintelligible) Zaluzhnyi is not responsible for this. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief is responsible for this. Both under the Constitution and the law. And by his powers. Only he is responsible. He is not doing this. What will the new Commander-in-Chief do, if he is also not allowed to mobilise people and replenish troops? Will he be able to change anything in the army? He will not. The fact that they did not pass the draft law on mobilisation is just horrible. This is a real crime. People are exhausted to death at the front. And here, neither reserves nor replenishment are being prepared. And the responsibility for the situation in Avdiivka is solely due to the failures in mobilisation. If there had been replenishment of people and units, the crisis would not have arisen. We have favourable positions in Avdiivka. We repelled the enemy many times, all the assaults. This situation would not have happened.
HOW DOES THE WEST REACT TO THE DECISION TO DISMISS ZALUZHNYI?
Next. Alejandro: how the West reacts to Zelensky's decision on Zaluzhnyi
The West can only express concern. What can they say? It's the decision of the Ukrainian authorities. And objectively, as I said at the beginning, this is the president's authority. The president has the right to determine who in his team leads the defence forces. This is his exclusive authority and his responsibility. Therefore, the West will not interfere in this issue. Although it is, of course, a matter of great concern to them. Because Western military leaders have developed a certain relationship with Zaluzhnyi. Any changes during active hostilities raise concerns and questions. The authorities decided that this was not important and they are going ahead with it.
EC: I'm sorry, (unintelligible) we have problems in our military planning (unintelligible) about mobilisation
Dear EC, you may have missed it, you have just switched on. We have a lot of problems with the military command, indeed, a lot of issues that are not being resolved, for which there are no systemic solutions. We have failures and defeats. We have a large number of shortcomings in tactics and operational art, in the management of troops at the highest level, including the General Staff. They objectively exist. This is far from perfect management. Therefore, I understand your desire to protect Supreme Commander-in-Chief Zelenskyy from criticism. This is your legitimate right as a citizen. But he is in charge, responsible for defence. And the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is his subordinate. So, of course, how can you say that Zelenskyy has nothing to do with it, and it's just the military? Well, you know, they say in Russia that the tsar is good, the boyars are bad. Let's not have this Russian narrative. There is power, there is responsibility. We must not forget what it consists of. That's why there is a lot of planning in the military, and in order to solve them, I think we need to create a single vertical and stop this conflict between Syrskyi and Zaluzhnyi, who artificially created the Presidential Office by his actions. I will even say without naming names: the conflict between the two top leaders in the Armed Forces must be stopped. Then there will be accountability and it will be possible to ask: why didn't you do it? And now there is a mess, fragmented management. I emphasise once again that the President has the right to change the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and I respect this right, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. But I expect changes to be based on logic and results, not PR. I hope you do too. And I mentioned the law on mobilisation because how are generals supposed to fight if they are not given any replenishment? How? How do you imagine it? The law on mobilisation must be adopted by the president. It depends on him. According to the Constitution, again. If you respect Zelenskyy's right to remove the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, then you must also demand that he act according to the law in terms of mobilisation. These are related issues.
DO WE NEED 500 THOUSAND MOBILIZED?
(unintelligible)Taras: Isn't 500,000 too many for mobilisation? Can we afford this amount every year?
That's a very good question, it's a good question. I think so. 500,000 is a large number of people for us. I'm not going to tell you right now whether we need 500,000. In my opinion, it is too much. But a significant number, several hundred thousand people. Certainly, to restore the army, to give rotations, to give people leave, to compensate for the dismissal of people who leave for health reasons, for health reasons, for disability, for injury. To compensate for the heavy losses we have in terms of dead. We really need to talk about several hundred thousand mobilised. I would talk about 500,000. But only under one condition. If I was sure that the state could provide adequate (unintelligible), adequate provision and organisation for 500,000 people. Unfortunately, I just don't see it. The main problem we have is that the system of training centres that we have is absolutely incompetent and completely ineffective. We need training units in active combat brigades. We need training programmes that are implemented. There should be a test of the actual knowledge that the soldiers pass. But it does not exist. We have only a process. People are sent to live somewhere in nature, to training centres. They do something there. In reality, combat training, to varying degrees, takes place only at the front after arrival at the unit. We need to stop this inadequate spending... this is an objective complaint against the General Staff, which can be made to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, because we have very poor training. We have poor professional training of mobilised soldiers. I think it stems from the fact that our training centres have always been such blatant offices, where some of their own people serve. It has never been... it has been built this way since Soviet times. Unfortunately, this tradition continued in our country. The quality of training in educational (unspecified). And we need systemic changes. If we had a clear plan for what positions, how many people the army needs, if we had an electronic record of conscripts, then the army could competently carry out mobilisation, then we would have to demand competent training from the army. I believe that training in modern conditions for a serviceman for a modern war should be at least six months, if we want people to be fit for their positions, able to act confidently, and not suffer such heavy losses. This would be appropriate.
Unfortunately, there is no such system of modern training adequate to the total mobilisation of a major war in Ukraine. Who is responsible? Generals always point in all directions. And the Supreme Commander-in-Chief at the headquarters always says: what does this have to do with me? This crisis of responsibility and evasion does not start with citizens in the street. The evaders are sitting in the highest office. That's where the evasion is. When the president starts looking for problems not because he has bad PR and a high rating, but looks for problems of how we can win the war and stops evading the solution of problems, stops evading his responsibility for the defence of Ukraine. Then we will have systemic changes. Systemic changes, including personnel changes. Systemic changes that we can trust. And now, you see, we have doubts, and for all of us, this is just a media problem. Who will be elected? And what will happen? Nobody knows.
ABOUT THE JOKER
Slavik Kukhta. Thank you, Slavik, for your support: Mr Yuriy, you interviewed a fighter with the call sign Joker. He was wounded. Did you ask him how he is doing?
Yes, we are in touch. Thank you for your question. This is a truly unique infantryman. Just to say, one of the symbols, in my opinion, of our infantry, unbreakable, resilient, a symbol of the Ukrainian spirit. Joker is currently undergoing treatment. His situation is good in that he has a leg injury that basically allows them to simply put the leg in a plaster cast, without having to put any bolts, spokes or implants in it. So far, doctors are looking at the dynamics of healing. The Joker is getting enough sleep, doing his Tik Tok, by the way, and invites everyone. I have his Tik-tok channel below the video. He will be very pleased if people subscribe to his Tik-tok. He is recovering. God bless him, he's healthy. The process is slow. He needs a few more months to start walking and running again. So we keep in touch. Thank you for your question. I'm also happy to hear from Joker.
All right, friends. Thank you very much.
Despite all the hardships and fevers, I want to say that here in Donbas I am among real Ukrainians, heroes. This always inspires and stimulates me to work and to take further action. In the near future, we will be making new stories from some of the hot spots on the frontline. I am glad to hear from everyone. Today, more than ever, I am confident in our Victory, that we will find a way to Victory and to become a truly strongly organised state and nation. Glory to Ukraine, friends.
Yuriy Butusov, Censor. NET
