By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Reports indicate that former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi declined a phone call from U.S. Vice President JD Vance in early March, shortly after a tense Oval Office meeting. The refusal stemmed from a “principled position” and a desire for unity, according to sources, with Vance’s team exploring potential replacements for President Zelensky. Despite hinting at political interest, Zaluzhnyi has not officially declared his candidacy, but polls show significant public support for him. In addition, there are reports of meetings between individuals close to Donald Trump and other Ukrainian figures.
Read the original article here
Zaluzhnyi declined call from Vance days after Oval Office clash. In an attempt by Vance to replace Zelensky. This whole situation is just mind-boggling, isn’t it? The idea that a high-ranking official in a foreign government, in this case, the United States, would attempt to orchestrate a leadership change in a country currently embroiled in a war is just… well, it’s stunningly audacious. And frankly, it seems like a monumental miscalculation on several levels. It’s easy to see why General Zaluzhnyi, by all accounts a respected military figure, would refuse to take a call from Vice President Vance under these circumstances.
The very premise of the alleged attempt to replace Zelenskyy is riddled with problems. Let’s start with the fundamental assumption that a foreign leader, in this case Zelenskyy, is easily replaceable by the whims of another nation. Does JD Vance seriously believe that other countries function as tin-pot dictatorships, willing to swap leaders at the behest of the US? The arrogance is almost comical. But beyond the arrogance, there’s a basic lack of strategic understanding. Even if Zaluzhnyi were inclined to consider such a move – which, by the way, seems highly unlikely – what would be the tangible benefits? A successful coup would almost certainly lead to a loss of crucial support from the EU, throwing Ukraine’s economic and political stability into chaos.
Furthermore, what guarantee would there be of US support for the replacement? More importantly, what guarantee would there be of ending the war? The US has shown a hesitance to fully commit, making any claims of being able to “end the war” sound hollow, like a poorly-delivered promise. Any Ukrainian leader installed through such a maneuver would be inheriting a poisoned chalice, facing domestic instability and the unrelenting pressure of a war. The Russians would no doubt see any such power shift as a sign of weakness, and this would almost certainly embolden Putin to press their advantage on the battlefield.
It’s almost as if JD Vance and his allies think everyone is incredibly naive. Did they truly believe that they could simply phone up a Ukrainian general and say, “Hey, want to be president?” and have everything go smoothly? It’s the kind of amateurish behavior that would be a national embarrassment in any other administration. For the Trump administration, however, it seems like just another day at the office.
The blatant disrespect for Ukrainian sovereignty is particularly galling. It’s almost like they believe that Ukrainians are too stupid to understand the implications of such an action, which is an insulting level of contempt. Moreover, is it really surprising that a US administration with a known affinity for Trump, who appears to be sympathetic to the Kremlin’s viewpoint of the conflict, and who has seemingly aligned himself with the Russian narrative that Ukraine isn’t truly democratic, would even try this?
And what was the expected outcome? A sudden shift in power? A new leader beholden to the US, willing to make deals with the Russians? It seems that anyone with a basic understanding of the situation would realize this was doomed from the outset. Zaluzhnyi, though possibly removed for the counteroffensive, is likely not a fool. He may have been personally frustrated by the lack of resources and the pursuit of unattainable goals in the war but he would certainly not be willing to play the role of a pawn in this manipulative game. The Ukrainians are not a bunch of puppets; they are fighting for their survival.
The whole situation is made worse by the optics. The administration, in its attempts to unseat a democratically elected leader, would then turn around and, without a hint of irony, complain about the CIA meddling in foreign affairs during the Maidan Revolution. The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.
The fact that the alleged instigator is JD Vance, who went to Yale, supposedly is also quite astonishing. It makes you wonder what they’re teaching these days. The current administration seems content to make a legacy as one of the most incompetent and ethically compromised in modern history. It is hard to imagine anyone taking JD Vance seriously.
It is also crucial to see the bigger picture, that this is a deeply cynical move to undermine a country that is in the midst of a fight for its very existence, and it is driven by a narrow, self-serving agenda.
Ultimately, the fact that Zaluzhnyi declined the call speaks volumes. It illustrates the resilience of the Ukrainian spirit and the unwavering resolve to defend their freedom and their leaders. It also demonstrates the sheer ineptitude of those who would dare to undermine them. The entire episode, if true, will forever be remembered as a shameful footnote in the history of US foreign policy, a testament to arrogance, incompetence, and a complete failure to understand the world.