Political views of Zaluzhnyi: how the “iron general” sees the future of Ukraine

Valery Zaluzhnyi, the former head of the Armed Forces, is not just a military leader who gained historical fame in the fight against Russian aggression. It has long since turned into a unique political phenomenon.

Zaluzhny is stable in Ukrainian society keeps the highest level of trust, exceeding the indicators of all other public figures. According to various estimates, 70% to 80% of Ukrainians trust him.

This unprecedented public support exists against a background of almost total political silence. Zaluzhnyi never announced his intention to start a political career, did not present any party programs and avoided direct criticism of the current state leadership. This paradox — an incredible rating without a clear political program — forces one to look for the worldview foundations of the general in his military-analytical publications and other public statements.

What is the political portrait of Valery Zaluzhnyi? How can it be characterized? What does he think about the future of Ukraine? UA.News political columnist Nikita Trachuk discussed the issue together with experts.

The voice after the lull: Zaluzhnyi’s new column

October 20 took place publication of a large analytical column by Zaluzhny on the website of the Polish analytical center Eastern Flank Institute. Today, October 21, her translation appeared in the Ukrainian mass media — it was he who became the reason for the analysis.

The extensive material of the ex-head of the commissar confirms that his thinking and plans for the future are strategic and go far beyond military issues, in which he is an expert. Zaluzhnyi articulates that going “beyond the front lines” is a necessary condition for the stability of the state. The key thesis that Zaluzhny consistently puts forward in his publications is that the future war will be determined not only by the number of weapons or mobilization resources, but also by the structural elements of the state system. He singles out demographics and economics as the two main factors that will determine the outcome of future conflicts.

Emphasis on demography is an indirect but sharp criticism of the current policy of human conservation, migration processes and mobilization. Politically, this could position Zaluzhny as a leader who thinks in terms of the nation’s long-term survival, not just tactical success in war.

At the same time, the selection of the economy as a separate component of the analysis indicates the need to transform the Ukrainian economic system into a stable wartime model. Which, in turn, requires deep reforms aimed at achieving self-sufficiency and moving away from the “needle” of foreign aid. This approach indicates a technocratic view of state administration, where economic efficiency is directly correlated with national security.

“It is necessary to fight for finance, technology and production with every country that interests us, remembering that the basis of our power lies in our technologies and practices of use. It is this approach that will not only protect Ukraine, but also be able to turn our defense industry into a point of economic growth, as it was in Israel and South Korea.” — writes Zaluzhnyi.

Overall, the new column confirms the general’s belief in the crucial role of technology. This thesis was through and through in his strategic articles, in particular in the publication CNN in 2024, where he emphasized the need to focus on the development of UAV systems. Zaluzhny constantly repeats the narrative of “accumulation of the latest combat capabilities” that will allow “less resources to be used to cause maximum damage to the enemy.”

This so-called “philosophy of resource minimization” is one of the political foundations of the ex-head committee. He clearly stated that the goal of all technological breakthroughs is to save people. In a society weary of loss, this emphasis politicotechnologically presents him as a leader who values ​​human life. If Zaluzhnyi ever forms a political force, its core will clearly be the bet on the military-technological and defense-industrial complex as the basis of national security.

Regarding foreign policy, Zaluzhny demonstrates a certain pragmatism, while remaining as pro-Western as possible. In the new column, he positively evaluates relations with partners, above all such as Great Britain, emphasizing their key role in the war. Politically, this means betting on increased cooperation with key allies ready for quick action. In general, the former head of state does not say anything new or groundbreaking here.

Zaluzhnyi’s new text is summarized with a call for joint work: the state and society, Ukraine and its partners. This is the only way to win and survive, the general is confident.

From the chief to the politician: a political portrait of Zaluzhnyi

An analysis of Zaluzhnyi’s public statements since his dismissal from office in February 2024 shows that his political worldview is based on several interrelated principles: strategic technocratism, realism, and an unalterable orientation to victory.

The worldview of the general can be described as technocratic militarism. His articles constantly emphasized the need for a new philosophy of warfare and a focus on high-tech means. He constantly emphasizes the need for innovation — as a textbook example, Zaluzhny mentions the invention of gunpowder and lighter.

This worldview presupposes awareness of the irreversibility of changes in the nature of hostilities. Politically, this results in a demand for a radical modernization of the state apparatus. Zaluzhny positions himself as a strategist who prioritizes innovation over hierarchy. His focus primarily on technological warfare and the rational use of resources forms his political credo: efficiency is economy, and economy is lives saved.

During the communication with the Western audience, Zaluzhny repeatedly expressed his concern about the “infantilism” of his partners, who, allegedly, understanding the possibility of further aggression by the Russian Federation, naively hope to avoid it. This criticism, although directed at the West, is a reflection of his own political position: the need to recognize reality without illusions and avoid complacency.

As for the conditions for ending the war, Zaluzhny is unequivocal. He emphasized that Russian aggression can be stopped only by a constant increase in the losses of the Russian army. He admits that so far Moscow does not pay attention to the number of killed and wounded, but believes that it is necessary to continue the pressure until the enemy refuses to conduct hostilities because the price is too high.

This forms his gender ethical “red line”: no compromises or cessation of hostilities until the goal of the enemy’s complete renunciation of aggression is achieved. Such a vision reinforces his image as an “iron general”, but may cause discontent among society, which is increasingly tired of the constant burden of shelling, mobilization and casualties and is thinking about scenarios for the earliest possible end of the war.

Valery Zaluzhnyi as a “clean slate”

Despite the clear strategic views of the ex-head of the commissar on war, technology and international cooperation, the political portrait of Valery Zaluzhny remains incomplete. The most noticeable characteristic of his public image is his silence on key domestic political issues that form the basis of any political program in Ukraine. This turns it into a tabula rasa—a “blank slate” onto which society transfers its best expectations.

The most critical gap in his statements concerns anti-corruption policy, judicial reform, law enforcement reform, constitutional changes, and decentralization. This is a mandatory element of the program of any leader who aspires to the highest political positions in Ukraine. But Zaluzhny simply does not talk about it – just as he does not promise a quick end to the war and in general rarely uses peaceful rhetoric.

Most likely, the general is not very well versed in the intricacies of Ukrainian politics. He is clearly not interested in political games and specific persons. Silence can have two interpretations. On the one hand, by avoiding expressing a position on certain internal issues, he creates the image of a leader who stands, as it were, “above” all political conflicts. On the other hand, the price of silence is high. A leader who does not have a position on fundamental domestic problems cannot be considered a full-fledged statesman.

It should be noted that Zaluzhnyi deliberately does not deny rumors about his presidential ambitions. He would say it in one sentence, destroying all guesses and rumors, but he still hasn’t. This shows that silence is part of a political tactic. He accumulates political capital passively while others are forced to spend it, constantly under the pressure of public attention and the need to respond to complex domestic problems.

Opinions of experts

Political scientist, director of the Center for Applied Political Research “Penta” Volodymyr Fesenko believes that Zaluzhnyi today mainly works for the Ukrainian audience in a political sense. This is part of his tactics and strategy.

“There will be many more such columns. Zaluzhny will remind us of himself, this is part of his political strategy. The choice of the place of publication is not so fundamental here. Think at least of the Vogue photo shoot and a similar column in the summer — not bad, by the way. That’s what tactics and strategy are. The strategy is to constantly remind about Zaluzhny, so that he is not forgotten. Tactics — choosing a place, in Ukraine or abroad. And in general, any column by Zaluzhny, even in a foreign language, is still reprinted in our country. In my opinion, the main audience here is still Ukrainian. Although there are messages to Europe in the new article. But with all due respect to Valery Fedorovych, Zaluzhny is not the main analyst of the Ukrainian issue for Europe. In military terms, yes, of course. But in general, for Western public opinion, he is not a major political figure. Therefore, its influence on this audience is limited, and mostly it is aimed specifically at Ukrainians.” Volodymyr Fesenko is confident.

A political scientist, director of the “Third Sector” center Andriy Zolotaryov on the contrary, he believes that this Zaluzhnyi column was directed primarily at an external audience. And the expert unexpectedly compares the former head of state with Viktor Yushchenko, the former president of Ukraine.

“Valery Zaluzhny’s new column is a case when the publication was initially made for a Polish analytical publication and was certainly aimed at an external audience, but political technologists and advisors of the British ambassador decided to work on the internal audience as well. The task was to show that the “iron general” is not only a general, but he also understands the issues of the development of the Military Industry, and political issues, etc. But from a polytechnological point of view, this is still an attempt to position Valery Zaluzhnyi, who, when he started his diplomatic career, had many questions as a politician. Is he a politician or is he as professional as he was in the military?

But I have the impression that this new pathetic publication goes “by the cash register”. And there is a certain political myth of Zaluzhnyi, which reminds me of exactly what happened long ago around the then young and promising Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko. When a certain figure is mythologized and then it is led into big politics. That’s what we see in this column.” Andriy Zolotaryov noted.

Summarizing, Valery Zaluzhny remains one of the most paradoxical figures of Ukrainian politics. On the one hand, he is a symbol of national resilience, with a huge level of credibility built up thanks to military merit at the start of the war. However, at the same time, the political portrait of Zaluzhnyi still remains only a sketch, and not a complete picture.

Ukrainians trust Zaluzhny the hero and Zaluzhny the leader, but they know almost nothing about Zaluzhny the politician. Public statements after his resignation confirm a deep involvement in military and international affairs, but he deliberately avoids the “minefield” of domestic problems.

That is why Zaluzhny remains a “cat in a bag.” His popularity is based on the projection of public ideals about a strong, honest and effective leader. But, as they say, “your expectations are your problems.” Political capital, built on past merit and constant silence, is powerful, but at the same time very fragile. And the greatest risk for the general will come when he will have to talk a lot about many internal problems.