They might wait until after Russia agrees to a ceasefire (if it ever does) since replacing him with Zaluzhny while hostilities still rage could further weaken Ukraine to Russia’s benefit.
Excuse me Andrew but why Zaluzny would be a more legitime leader than Zelensky?
If he come after a western coup, where will be his legitimity?
I'm sure that every morning , members of russian security council is obsessed by the idea of crushing UK with heel like a cockroach and it cost them a lot of self control not to do it.
And Zaluzny is ambassador in...UK.
The UK's puppet, came after a coup backed by Anglo-Saxons. And Russian could consider him as a legitimate leader?
I don't remember that Ho Chi Minh found Durong more legitimate than Diem.
Russia's official position is that Zelensky is illegitimate per Putin's interpretation of the Ukrainian Constitution, thus, Russia fears that Ukraine could in the future rubbish whatever peace deal might be agreed to with Zelensky on that pretext.
Accordingly, it's called for new elections and hinted that it'll recognize whoever'll win, which could likely be Zaluzhny, who's genuinely popular in Ukrainian society. What I summarized is Russia's position, not necessarily my personal opinion on this issue.
The way the world actually works, when you strip away the propaganda from all sides (some of whom disguise it better and package their narratives more convincingly than others), is that states pursue influence, power, and interests per the Neo-Realist paradigm.
Other paradigms propose other motivations but I don't consider them to be as accurate as the (admittedly also somewhat flawed) Neo-Realist one which shapes my worldview more than the others.
I hyperlinked to an analysis about the election scenario. However Zaluzhny might come to power, all signals sent thus far by the Russian state -- whether SVR, publicly financed media, etc. -- suggest that they'd prefer him over Zelensky.
I therefore don't expect them to escalate political tensions with Ukraine in that scenario unless Zaluzhny stays the course and continues the conflict, presuming that he might replace Zelensky while hostilities still rage. If he comes to power after a ceasefire, if there ever is one, then I expect Russia to recognize him.
What's most important for Russia, in my assessment, isn't the "principle" of who's "constitutionally legitimate" and who isn't but the "pragmatism" of who might agree to more concessions to Russia per Putin's peace demands. Whether right or wrong, the Kremlin thinks that Zaluzhny would be more flexible than Zelensky.
“Zaluzhny has been among the most popular people in Ukraine in 2022,[25] in January 2023, when he was liked by 87% of Ukrainian respondents and disliked by 4%,[37] and in December 2023 when 88% of Ukrainians expressed trust in Zaluzhnyi.[38]
In January 2023, he received a US$1 million inheritance from Gregory Stepanets, a Ukrainian-American. Zaluzhny donated it all to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and humanitarian nonprofits in Ukraine.”
He was fired by Zelensky amid disagreements, but awarded “Hero of Ukraine” status, then given the prestigious UK Ambassador position. 🤔
This is a nuanced take on the power dynamics within Ukraine and the West’s strategic calculations. Replacing Zelensky amid active conflict could risk destabilizing Ukraine further, so waiting for a ceasefire makes strategic sense. Zaluzhny as a successor seems plausible, but the timing will hinge heavily on the war’s trajectory and geopolitical interests.
> "...replacing him [the LIttle Z] while hostilities still rage could further weaken Ukraine to Russia’s benefit"
probably, but not necessarily.
If dissatisfaction with the Clown Z is over the threshold, and it could very well be, replacing him with someone more palatable could strengthen the resolve and boost the morale. It is probably too late for that due to war fatigue in UA.
Any scenario in UA political top will only benefit Russia in one way or another. It is a lose-lose situation for them. Westies may go desperation way now and invade western UA to prevent unconditional capitulation (say by popular uprising). For that a new pres would be required.
Why should Russia agree to a ceasefire at all? All a ceasefire does is give the US Empire time to ship more weapons to Ukraine to kill more Russians.
There is no need for the Empire to wait for a ceasefire to dump Zelensky, either. Corruption charges in the middles of wars against Communist or Muslim extremist or whatever anti-imperialist "aggression" have served to depose of troublesome compradors before.
More symbolism than practicality in waiting to replace Zelensky. I don’t see there being any actual impact on the battlefield in Russia’s favour. But the symbolism would be powerful if the moment was well chosen. And the West are fighting a war of narrative, above all else.
Nonetheless as you rightly say, now that the war is firmly Trump’s war, it is Trump who has been “reset”, so why bother swapping out Zelensky now?
Because Zelensky came after an election and is not absolutely the creature of Anglo-Saxons. Zaluzny yes.
At the bottom of Zelensky remain a tiny tiny part of nationalism. Zaluzny no. Especially if if arrive after a coup.
Zelensky came as peace président and became compradore. Zaluzny will come as compradore. Entirely and only compradore, all devoted to his Anglo-Saxon masters...and payers.
He's a tool, nothing more than a tool. If masters say: "make peace in giving half of Ukraine to Russia", he will . If masters say: " now you kill all ukrainian ultras nazis too annoying " he will. He they say " go war till the last Ukrainian", he will.
That of course would be a repeat of the original coup and of the attempted Orange (regime change) Revolution of 2004.
The West has no legal right to pick a candidate. They have absolutely no interests in the outcome of the election. They have no standing. They cannot prove that their own existence is adversely affected by an outcome that their leaders don't desire.
This is how they robbed Ukraine of its sovereignty the first time.
"legitimate Ukrainian leader"???
Excuse me Andrew but why Zaluzny would be a more legitime leader than Zelensky?
If he come after a western coup, where will be his legitimity?
I'm sure that every morning , members of russian security council is obsessed by the idea of crushing UK with heel like a cockroach and it cost them a lot of self control not to do it.
And Zaluzny is ambassador in...UK.
The UK's puppet, came after a coup backed by Anglo-Saxons. And Russian could consider him as a legitimate leader?
I don't remember that Ho Chi Minh found Durong more legitimate than Diem.
Perhaps I have not seen something important.
Russia's official position is that Zelensky is illegitimate per Putin's interpretation of the Ukrainian Constitution, thus, Russia fears that Ukraine could in the future rubbish whatever peace deal might be agreed to with Zelensky on that pretext.
Accordingly, it's called for new elections and hinted that it'll recognize whoever'll win, which could likely be Zaluzhny, who's genuinely popular in Ukrainian society. What I summarized is Russia's position, not necessarily my personal opinion on this issue.
The way the world actually works, when you strip away the propaganda from all sides (some of whom disguise it better and package their narratives more convincingly than others), is that states pursue influence, power, and interests per the Neo-Realist paradigm.
Other paradigms propose other motivations but I don't consider them to be as accurate as the (admittedly also somewhat flawed) Neo-Realist one which shapes my worldview more than the others.
Russia's official position is silly. The only thing that matters is whether the titular rulers orders are obeyed. That is all.
Yanukovych could publish decrees and call himself any title he wishes, and the populace would ignore him and scorn his decrees.
Yes, I've missed the step "election".
But you didn't talk about it.
If Anglos dismiss Zelensky , convene election , sincere election and Zaluzny win these elections, yes, probably Russian will recognize him.
But do you think that if Anglos instal Zaluzny as "président " after a coup, Russia will recognize him as legitimate?
Real politics or not, I don't think so.
I hyperlinked to an analysis about the election scenario. However Zaluzhny might come to power, all signals sent thus far by the Russian state -- whether SVR, publicly financed media, etc. -- suggest that they'd prefer him over Zelensky.
I therefore don't expect them to escalate political tensions with Ukraine in that scenario unless Zaluzhny stays the course and continues the conflict, presuming that he might replace Zelensky while hostilities still rage. If he comes to power after a ceasefire, if there ever is one, then I expect Russia to recognize him.
What's most important for Russia, in my assessment, isn't the "principle" of who's "constitutionally legitimate" and who isn't but the "pragmatism" of who might agree to more concessions to Russia per Putin's peace demands. Whether right or wrong, the Kremlin thinks that Zaluzhny would be more flexible than Zelensky.
Indeed , It's better to learn that before being totally disappointed in such a case.
And I must confess that without reading your article, if this case happens, I would have been dismayed.
It's not the first time you learn me an harsh truth wich ultimately turn to be right.
Thank you.
I'm probably less fool now.
You're welcome, and wishing you a nice upcoming weekend, Darras!
And so it begins extaction of Ucranian remaining wealth into the American corporation pockets...
The professional comedian doesn't care, his escape castles are prepared, his assets are parked in safe banks abroad.
“Zaluzhny has been among the most popular people in Ukraine in 2022,[25] in January 2023, when he was liked by 87% of Ukrainian respondents and disliked by 4%,[37] and in December 2023 when 88% of Ukrainians expressed trust in Zaluzhnyi.[38]
In January 2023, he received a US$1 million inheritance from Gregory Stepanets, a Ukrainian-American. Zaluzhny donated it all to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and humanitarian nonprofits in Ukraine.”
He was fired by Zelensky amid disagreements, but awarded “Hero of Ukraine” status, then given the prestigious UK Ambassador position. 🤔
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerii_Zaluzhnyi
The successor will be a Eurasian Chinese wheelchair user, grassroots democratic and then everything will remain completely different!
This is a nuanced take on the power dynamics within Ukraine and the West’s strategic calculations. Replacing Zelensky amid active conflict could risk destabilizing Ukraine further, so waiting for a ceasefire makes strategic sense. Zaluzhny as a successor seems plausible, but the timing will hinge heavily on the war’s trajectory and geopolitical interests.
> "...replacing him [the LIttle Z] while hostilities still rage could further weaken Ukraine to Russia’s benefit"
probably, but not necessarily.
If dissatisfaction with the Clown Z is over the threshold, and it could very well be, replacing him with someone more palatable could strengthen the resolve and boost the morale. It is probably too late for that due to war fatigue in UA.
Any scenario in UA political top will only benefit Russia in one way or another. It is a lose-lose situation for them. Westies may go desperation way now and invade western UA to prevent unconditional capitulation (say by popular uprising). For that a new pres would be required.
I hope to end up wrong.
Why should Russia agree to a ceasefire at all? All a ceasefire does is give the US Empire time to ship more weapons to Ukraine to kill more Russians.
There is no need for the Empire to wait for a ceasefire to dump Zelensky, either. Corruption charges in the middles of wars against Communist or Muslim extremist or whatever anti-imperialist "aggression" have served to depose of troublesome compradors before.
If they don't do it it's probably either because they think it's not good for them or because balance of power don't allow them.
More symbolism than practicality in waiting to replace Zelensky. I don’t see there being any actual impact on the battlefield in Russia’s favour. But the symbolism would be powerful if the moment was well chosen. And the West are fighting a war of narrative, above all else.
Nonetheless as you rightly say, now that the war is firmly Trump’s war, it is Trump who has been “reset”, so why bother swapping out Zelensky now?
Because Zelensky came after an election and is not absolutely the creature of Anglo-Saxons. Zaluzny yes.
At the bottom of Zelensky remain a tiny tiny part of nationalism. Zaluzny no. Especially if if arrive after a coup.
Zelensky came as peace président and became compradore. Zaluzny will come as compradore. Entirely and only compradore, all devoted to his Anglo-Saxon masters...and payers.
He's a tool, nothing more than a tool. If masters say: "make peace in giving half of Ukraine to Russia", he will . If masters say: " now you kill all ukrainian ultras nazis too annoying " he will. He they say " go war till the last Ukrainian", he will.
They might as well just be honest and make ex MI6 chief Richard Dearlove the president of Ukraine.
Honest???? Anglo-Saxons? It's an oxymoron.
That of course would be a repeat of the original coup and of the attempted Orange (regime change) Revolution of 2004.
The West has no legal right to pick a candidate. They have absolutely no interests in the outcome of the election. They have no standing. They cannot prove that their own existence is adversely affected by an outcome that their leaders don't desire.
This is how they robbed Ukraine of its sovereignty the first time.