By John Q. Hosedrinker 
General Oleg Salyukov has been relieved of his duties as commander-in-chief of the Russian Ground Forces after eight years in the position. He has been appointed to a deputy role within the Security Council. No replacement has yet been named. The dismissal follows revelations that Salyukov’s family profited from military-related events organized by his daughter-in-law’s firm.
Read the original article here
President Putin’s recent dismissal of the commander-in-chief of the Russian Ground Forces has sparked a flurry of speculation and commentary. The timing, just days before a planned summer offensive, immediately raises questions about the state of Russia’s military strategy and leadership. Some suggest this is a necessary move to revitalize the flagging offensive, a “sacking” that might even pave the way for future victories. Others point to the ongoing string of military setbacks—even resorting to tactics like sending motorcycles into tank fortifications, only to be decimated by drones—as evidence of deeper problems within the Russian military command structure. The sheer desperation in these tactics underscores the gravity of the situation.
The sheer scale of the recent losses, compounded by issues like the ineffective deployment of air defenses (which inadvertently struck Russian buildings while targeting drones), paints a picture of significant disarray. The vulnerability exposed by shifting air defenses away from ammunition stores, leading to the loss of a year’s worth of missiles, speaks volumes about the overall command decisions and their consequences. The situation is further exacerbated by the considerable support Ukraine receives from countries like Latvia, providing thousands of drones monthly, significantly impacting the battlefield dynamics. This influx of technology, coupled with the successes of smaller, more agile fighting forces like the Colombian units, is turning the tide against Russia.
There’s a noticeable contrast between the narrative spun by official sources and the reality on the ground. While some portray the removal of the commander as a mere reshuffle or even a promotion to a less demanding role within the security council, many see it as a classic case of scapegoating. The suggestion that the dismissed commander—who, incidentally, was nearing retirement age—is merely being moved to a safe position within the security council feels far from convincing to many observers. The idea that this might even be a promotion is seen as cynical, at best, given the circumstances. Indeed, the prevailing sentiment suggests that this is just another head rolling in a long line of dismissed generals. The implication is that Putin is seeking to preserve his image and deflect blame for the ongoing military failures, casting someone else as the cause of the problems.
The casual phrasing surrounding the dismissal – “sacked,” “fired,” “fallen out of a window”—highlights the darkly humorous undercurrent running through the conversation. While some interpret the event strictly as a dismissal, many cannot help but invoke the infamous history of mysterious deaths and “accidental” falls from high places among individuals who have fallen out of favor with the Russian regime. The jokes about defenestration, while morbid, underscore the underlying apprehension and skepticism surrounding the official narrative. This skepticism extends to Putin’s authority itself, with many questioning his legitimacy and referring to him as a “dictator” or “warlord.” The question of whether he’s truly elected is raised, adding a layer of political intrigue to the military reshuffle.
The comments also reveal a profound sense of frustration and disillusionment with the war’s course. The initial optimism of a “three-day military operation” has long since evaporated, replaced by a grim awareness of staggering losses and seemingly futile strategies. The repetitive cycle of sackings, coupled with the lack of significant gains for the Russian military, fuels a sense of inevitability—a sense that the same pattern will repeat until another scapegoat is found. Even the prospect of a replacement commander inheriting such a fraught situation is viewed with a blend of pity and apprehension. This suggests an underlying weariness with the entire situation, a cynicism reflecting the seeming futility of the war effort as it currently stands. The narrative doesn’t seem to offer any glimmer of hope for a swift or decisive victory for Russia, and the future seems uncertain and potentially dangerous for any commander taking the reins of the ground forces. It leaves the impression that the ongoing military campaign is in dire straits, facing both internal and external challenges that are far from being resolved.