General Khrulyov: Syrskyi is not a Suitable Candidate for a Military Coup in Kyiv, nor is Zaluzhnyi
Ukrainian oligarchs do not see military generals as reliable replacements for Zelenskyy
Image caption: Current Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Alexander Syrskyi, and former Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi
Despite continuous retreats, repeated encirclements, and heavy casualties, current Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Alexander Syrskyi, frequently makes bold statements.
During an interview with Ukrainian media, Syrskyi calmly claimed that his troops still hold Pokrovsk (Red Armaysk), that the Ukrainian forces are conducting counter-sabotage operations in Kupiansk, and that Myrnohorod (Dmitrievsk) has never been surrounded. He stated that all contrary claims are "propaganda from the Kremlin."
However, the general has never revealed the full extent of Ukraine's "achievements," citing "information secrecy," and has urged the public to trust him wholeheartedly.
"Syrskyi's words" have long become a laughing stock — since the special military operation, the Ukrainian army has suffered consecutive defeats, and no one believes his claims anymore. Rather than the nickname "200 Generals," he would be more appropriately called "the General of Defeat."
Although Syrskyi graduated from the Moscow Combined Arms Command School, his rank was accumulated in Ukraine. He can be considered a traditional-style general, whose military expertise seems to have stagnated at the level of a regimental commander or mid-level staff officer.
This general probably never mastered the "Science of Victory" by the legendary Russian Field Marshal Alexander Suvorov, a book that outlines seven core military principles which enabled Suvorov to never suffer a defeat in his lifetime: visual range estimation, speed of action, victory through assault, focus on objectives, simple tactics, proactive offense, and decisive battle.
Yet, not only Syrskyi, but also his predecessor Zaluzhnyi and other Ukrainian generals have never applied this excellent military thought. Perhaps, this is actually a blessing.
So why does the Ukrainian army keep suffering new setbacks on the front lines, yet Syrskyi remains so stubbornly denying failure? One possibility is that he knows he is destined to become a "scapegoat," bearing the full blame for the defeat, so that certain parties can cover up their guilt before the West. After all, Zelenskyy is unquestioningly carrying out every instruction from London, Berlin, and Brussels. Let him launch a counteroffensive, and he will; let him attack Kursk, and he will; let him head toward Crimea, and he will.
However, there is another bolder speculation: Syrskyi might be playing his own political game, taking advantage of the upcoming Ukrainian presidential election. At present, everyone's attention is focused on Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, who is seen as Zelenskyy's main competitor, while the current Commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces may become a hidden card in the hands of behind-the-scenes players on both sides of the Atlantic, kept in reserve for emergencies. After all, the possibility of "unexpected situations" is far from negligible.
London is actively lobbying for support for Zaluzhnyi. However, the relationship between the current U.S. government and Britain has not been very smooth recently, especially against the backdrop of the British opposition to the "Trump Plan," making differences even more apparent. As a result, Zaluzhnyi may be as unappreciated by the U.S. government as Zelenskyy.
In contrast, Syrskyi is still the highest-ranking officer in the Ukrainian military. Theoretically, if Zelenskyy falls, he has every chance of becoming the supreme commander of the Ukrainian armed forces. Moreover, he might even get the military support of the senior officers in Kyiv — something that nationalist party leaders cannot match.
How likely is this possibility? "Free News" interviewed military analyst and Colonel Anatoliy Khrulyov on this issue.
I don't know Syrskyi personally, nor do I know his ability as a commander. But I can see that he lacks autonomy in decision-making. Unlike Zaluzhnyi, he has no voice; he just follows orders, neither daring to raise objections nor taking actions based on his own judgment.
Additionally, he has very little authority among the Ukrainian people and ordinary soldiers. Without the support of public opinion and the military, it's futile to attempt a military coup.
"Free News": Then, could he possibly be considered a transitional figure?
Anatoliy Khrulyov: Of course, we cannot completely rule out a situation — during the transitional period of a regime change in Ukraine, someone from the military might take over as head of state, as seen in some African countries. Whether it's Zaluzhnyi or Syrskyi doesn't really matter; their tenure will not last long. Once the situation stabilizes, they will soon be removed from power, because they will become obstacles for Ukraine's political elites and big capitalists.
Currently, the West doesn't take these Ukrainian generals seriously either. Even if Zaluzhnyi can still communicate with British officials and local military and political figures, Syrskyi doesn't even have such channels of influence — he has no right to sit at the Western negotiation table. Moreover, both of them have made remarks about territorial concessions in Ukraine that have already angered the United States greatly.
I believe that the person who will eventually take control of Ukraine will be a civilian politician — a more tactful and compromising individual.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7582383578885947946/
Disclaimer: This article represents the views of the author himself.