President Volodymyr Zelensky's alleged plan to dismiss Ukraine's commander-in-chief may be intended to help him justify further mobilization measures or strategic changes on the battlefield, but risks undermining national unity while doing little to aid Kyiv's greater war effort. On Jan. 29, Ukrainian and Western journalists reported, citing sources in Zelesnky's administration, that the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Valery Zaluzhny, could be imminently relieved as a result of an impending military shakeup, and that Zelensky was already consulting with Western partners about a decree to this effect. Ukrainian President Zelesnky's spokesman Serhii Nikiforov quickly denied the information, but the story still sparked questions about the potential reasons for such a move and its implications, as polling data suggests Zaluzhny is the only figure in Ukraine more popular than Zelensky. The Financial Times confirmed the reports on Jan. 30, but said Zaluzhny ''may not be ousted for some time'' because the reports of the plans appeared in Ukrainian media and thus presumably risked creating a larger-than-expected domestic backlash. 

• A December 2023 poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that Zaluzhny was trusted by 92% of Ukrainians, while 77% of Ukrainians trusted Zelensky. 
• These media reports are the latest in a series of rumors about alleged tensions between Zelensky and Zaluzhny over setbacks in the war. In a November 2023 interview, Zaluzhny said the conflict with Russia was at a stalemate and warned about the risk of a prolonged trench war. Zelensky disagreed with this view, offering a more optimistic view of the war to secure national cohesion and foreign support. Later media reports indicated deeper grievances, with Zelensky holding Zaluzhny responsible for Ukraine's past defense failures and its failed counteroffensive in 2023. Tensions were exacerbated by allegations linking Zaluzhny's subordinates to the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline attacks that strained Ukraine's relations with Western allies. Zaluzhny contends he is unfairly blamed for broader failures outside the military's control.
• Responding to the reports, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said Zaluzhny's removal would be a ''devastating blow to national unity'' that Ukrainians and Western partners both see as necessary to continue resisting Russia's invasion. Poroshenko called on Zelensky to drop any such plans, which he said would be driven by emotion and jealousy and come with ''risks that had not been properly analyzed'' and ''have extremely negative consequences for Ukraine.'' This highlights possible political turmoil within Ukraine that could be used to justify reductions in Western support. 

Clashes over the details of a new mobilization plan are likely what's driving the Ukrainian president to consider removing the military chief, with the latter preferring more drastic draft measures than the former. While tensions between Zaluzhny and Zelensky have likely built for months, the fundamental disagreement now is over if, and how quickly, Ukraine should try to maximize frontline manpower in 2024 and 2025 for a renewed large-scale offensive. Zaluzhny reportedly supports large-scale mobilization in Ukraine, including dropping the minimum mobilization age from 27 to 25 and removing draft exemptions to allow for increased rotations. But Zelensky opposes such mobilization unless it's paired with a viable plan for retaking more ground on the battlefield. This comes as Ukrainian officials are mulling a potential new round of mobilization: on Jan. 30 Ukraine's government sent a revised bill concerning mobilization, military registration and military service to lawmakers in the country's parliament. Among those who support large-scale mobilization, there are divisions over whether the newly drafted troops should be used to quickly bolster the frontline, or if the manpower should instead be mobilized more gradually and used almost entirely to rotate existing Ukrainian forces, for which many parliamentarians advocate. Others have questioned whether significant mobilization is needed at all, given its various economic and social drawbacks — arguing such a move should instead be a last resort if more troops are deemed necessary to hold the frontline. Against this backdrop, the Zelensky administration likely believes that a new Ukrainian military head would offer a fresh face for a new strategy and whichever mobilization measures are ultimately chosen, as calls for accountability over the previous mobilization and broader war strategy would only rise. Whichever strategy Kyiv selects will also have major implications for if and when Kyiv can launch another offensive, and could shape future levels of Western support. 

• On Jan. 29, Zelensky said that 880,000 Ukrainians were currently serving in Ukraine's ''million-strong'' army. Only around 600,000 of those are serving in combat roles and only a portion of that number are on the front lines at any given time, meaning a mobilization of over 400,000 troops (as presumably supported by Zaluzhny) could significantly increase the ability of Ukrainian soldiers to take time off from frontline service, or increase the maximum present in combat roles. 
• Still, even the largest-scale mobilization under discussion of 500,000 or more is unlikely to grant a decisive manpower advantage over Russian forces. Russia formally raised its army strength by nearly 170,000 in December 2023 and likely has at least 600,000 forces on or near the frontline in Ukraine. In case of this Ukrainian mobilization, Russia would likely respond in kind by moving more of its already mobilized personnel into Ukraine, while using its volunteer campaign and mobilization measures to maintain rough parity with Ukrainian forces. 
• On Jan. 21, Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukraine's military intelligence agency HUR, said that ''the shortage [of manpower] is palpable'' and that it was hard to imagine continuing the war effort and avoiding capitulation without additional waves of mobilization. As the second most trusted military figure in Ukraine following Zaluzhny, Budanov has been floated as a possible replacement for Zaluzhny, although this appears doubtful given Budanov's lack of experience and competencies needed for the role. 

Removing Zaluzhny, however, would come with large drawbacks and limited benefits for Zelensky and Ukraine's resistance. If Zelensky moves to dismiss Zaluzhny, it would come as part of a military shakeup aimed at establishing a better working relationship with Zaluzhny's replacement, including greater alignment on further mobilization. But this would not alter or improve Ukraine's options for resisting Russia's invasion, as Zaluzhny's successor would be faced with the same difficult questions about Ukraine's war strategy. Zaluzhny's removal would also significantly damage the morale of the Ukrainian army and people, harming the country's ability to hold ground while likely emboldening political forces in the West who want to reduce support to Ukraine. Polls conducted in December 2023 indicated that 72% of Ukrainians disapprove of Zaluzhny's resignation, which suggests any effort to force him out would be met with public anger and would reduce national unity. The skepticism toward Zelensky's strategic decisions is possibly even more pronounced within the Ukrainian army. Still, the continuation of their conflict comes with near-term political and military risks, as doubts will grow in the public, government and military that the two can trust each other. So long as Zaluzhny remains in his post, the Zelensky administration will deny any plans to oust him, but these harmful tensions will persist.

• For Russia, increased tensions between Ukraine's government and military will create new openings for propaganda campaigns to fuel war fatigue in Ukraine and the West. On Jan. 29, the head of the Russian state-controlled broadcaster RT, Margarita Simonyan, said that no matter how the situation unfolds, the chaos will be useful for Russia. 
• Elements of the Ukrainian army are skeptical of Zelensky, namely over the perception that his administration did not take the threat of a full-scale Russian invasion seriously and failed to secure more weapons for Ukraine both before and since the invasion.