The “incapacitation” of the Ukrainian Armed Force’s Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny and the critical information war of denial

A May 26th article in the Ukrainian English language press, the  Kyiv Post [sic], triumphantly declared a victory in a specific information war against Russia when announcing an appearance by the Ukrainian Armed Force’s Commander-in-Chief, Valeri Zaluzhny, in a video allegedly produced on the previous day. “Bot farms”, it stated – thus implying an organised campaign – had been proven wrong in claims that the general had been wounded in an attack: “why does Russia even bother?”, it went on it to ask, indicating that the campaign was the official doings of that country.

The Telegraph joined this crowing over the defeat of Russian propaganda, stating that Zaluzhny’s appearance in the video dispelled rumours by “pro-Kremlin commentators [who had] reported the military leader… killed” – and in doing so absolutely confirmed how critical an issue it was for Ukrainian and UK military intelligence (because the latter undoubtedly leads and teaches the former) to maintain an image of reality in which Zaluzhny was alive and able.

Indeed, the coordinated presentation capped a campaign of considerable size of effort not unusual to what has already been established in terms of the singular manner that London and Kiev are reduced to in their fight against the militarily superior Russia, and for this reason alone it is worthy of study.

For on closer inspection, the Kyiv Post’s article was merely a compounding of a stack of crude Ukrainian/UK propaganda by the linkage of what it described as the *Russian need to lie* and what it portrayed as mere allegations of Zaluzhny’s injury, and its own preposterous denial that a Patriot air defence system had been destroyed by recent Russian attack in Kiev (on the contrary, the Russian missiles had been eliminated). As such, it told a story of Russian claims regarding Zaluzhny’s welfare that would be a surprise, and news to any observer who had followed the saga unfold: it knocked down its own strawmen, in short.

The main disingenuousness, of course, was that “Russians” had claimed Zaluzhny gravely injured at the same time as what actually was a successful attack with a Kinzhal missile in Kiev of 16th May: a propaganda campaign followed from that, was the claim. In truth, of course, the Russian state only became involved on the 24th May when RT reported that Zaluzhny had received medical attention after sustaining injuries in an attack near the city if Kherson that meant that he wouldn’t “able to command Kiev’s forces anymore due to head trauma”. A legend had already been built with no reference to official media appendages that Zaluzhny had been injured, or even killed, on May 8th in the Dnipropetrovsk region.

Ultimately, of course, the Kyiv Post article overlooked the hugely significant fact that the whole business started when an American military official got up in front of a microphone and excused Zaluzhny from a 10th May high-powered NATO meeting on account of his being too busy with the matter of upcoming the Ukrainian “spring offensive” (or, to be more exact, how it was becoming improbable because of “the difficult operational situation in defense against Russian aggression”), and how, thereafter, two and two were put together to make four by observing individuals. Naturally, the article didn’t display any cognisance of Zaluzhny supposedly being meant to be preoccupied at this current time with imminent military manoeuvres, or acknowledge the irony of his suddenly not being too busy to appear in a video just  to prove he was still alive – surely an act beneath his exulted rank that he should acknowledge a Ukrainian propaganda malfunction, or – more importantly – speculation rooted in the very real and serious occasion of  Zaluzhny’s disappearance from official duty.

As you see, reader, all the signs point to something still being wrong in this story. By association alone, the video is disqualified as truth: it is the crowning part, according to the Kyiv Post, of a Ukrainian version of the saga that is not true. This is even before one gets to how the video presents at least one good reason in itself to cause it to be treated as if dubious – something to happen in this piece in due course.

There was good reason to suspect Zaluzhny was even dead when US admiral, Rob Bauer, said that the day previous to the meeting of the NATO Military Committee he had received a letter from Zaluzhny explaining how he would be absent from this appointment. 9th May was also the day that Arman Soldin, a French video coordinator – or journalist for simplicity’s sake, was killed by a Russian Grad rocket near Chasov Yar. In the detail of the story was the fact that Soldin had been travelling with a group of “Ukrainian soldiers”. Although care was taken to make it clear that none other in the party had been injured, this is only to be expected if there was any sensitivity regarding potential other casualties.

The news became public knowledge the same day as Bauer was making excuses for Zaluzhny – and at the time it was (and still probably is) the best publicly documented evidence to suggest that something had gone badly wrong with Zaluzhny. Although it is true that the Ukrainians have a rule that journalists must be accompanied by military personnel when visiting certain areas on the battlefield, Soldin’s visit to the environs of Chasov Yar could have been a case of Western media accompanying a Ukrainian military dignitary for the publicity. Prigozhin, the ostensible leader of Wagner – and believe him or not – seemed to have information according to his pronouncements that Zaluzhny was that dignitary in that area at that time. Indeed, the context whereby Zaluzhny would be in the Chasov Yar vicinity is valid. The Ukrainians were about to launch a sizeable operation – perhaps the biggest since the autumn of 2022 – that would concentrate as an attack from the said town (and its outskirts) on Russian positions west of Artyomovsk.

As suggested above, the Chasov Yar incident is the best candidate for being the particular Russian attack in which Zaluzhny was killed or injured because it involves the coincidence of a verifiable death in the midst of a military delegation, a report of Zaluzhny being in the area at the time, and Zaluzhny having very good reason to be there. However, since 10th May, whatever the cause of it may be – whether people have looked at impressive explosions at places supposedly harbouring a Ukrainian headquarters – a legend has developed whereby Zaluzhny suffered a bombing in another place. Perhaps there had been an effort to muddy the waters, given that other place names – and dates even – appear to have originated on the Wild West of social media. Be that as it may, it was the coincidence of the death of the French journalist, and the cancellation at the same time of his attendance at the NATO meeting which persuaded the author that Zaluzhny had been incapacitated – meaning affected in some serious way so as to make him unable to carry out his duties. By the way, the NATO Military Committee is the body of that organisation that is composed of the Chiefs of Defence of the member states. It would not be some minor engagement for Zaluzhny to play truant from.

Quite the biggest clue that there was something wrong with Zaluzhny came from the Ukrainian efforts to grapple with what was, after all, a social media meme. Indeed, that it so obviously became a critical issue for the Ukrainians to produce counter-propaganda to deny what was  merely a rumour was quite self-defeating.  At first there was a silly story about Zaluzhny being on holiday in Cyprus: a context-less picture of him swimming was circulated. When one looks at the infantile output of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine on Twitter, for example, it’s quite feasible that this the work of official Ukrainian government, and a characteristic start to an incredibly crude campaign to portray Zaluzhny as “jus’ chillin’”.

On the 21st May a much less asinine effort materialised which involved Zaluzhny supposedly addressing an assembly and a prize-giving ceremony at a Ukrainian institute of higher learning, reputedly in Odessa. From the footage of the event, it appears as if a sombre-faced audience watched a pre-recorded film as if they were supposed to pretend it was live but couldn’t quite find the joy enough to do it. Indeed, the strange, grim and even grieving expressions on Zaluzhny’s viewers made it appear is if they knew something no one else did.

“Zaluzhny’s” less than ecstatic audience

However, the culmination of Ukrainian desperation to show Zaluzhny alive at any cost occurred on 25th May and a bizarre appearance of the man alongside the curiously named Anatolii Shtefan (one feels that a certain vowel is missing from the surname).  Shtefan appears to be an officer in Ukrainian military intelligence – or, at least, he is military personnel whose name, when one searches for him on the internet, is attached to Ukrainian exercises in propaganda.

This video, of course, is the very one mentioned at the top of this piece, and it involves Shtefan mentioning a partial date, prefacing what he is about to do with reference to “Russian propaganda” – except what this particularly entails is not explained – and then reveals that he is in the presence of Zaluzhny. The camera then pans to Zaluzhny, not to make any serious speech even though the taking of Artyomovsk by the Russians was a recent event, but  instead to speak Orwellian mottos.

A transcript of sorts is to be found in the image below which shows a set of posts on Twitter concerned with the film and its contents. Hopefully, the first thing to strike anyone inspecting this spectacle is that it is a self-contained exercise in proving Zaluzhny is alive. It has no other purpose.

Now, a thinking person’s response to this must be to ask why none less than the actual Commander-in-Chief of all Ukraine’s armed forces is reduced to appearing thus, in such a specialised counter-propaganda pop-up? One moment too busy to meet NATO with the “difficult operational situation”, but the next available for a “what’s up!” as he hangs out with homie, the grinning, smackable Anatolii? Is there anyone in their right mind who doesn’t think there’s something wrong with that?

Taking closer notice, the author thought that he had found the solution. There are two pieces of information to which this video refers to give it context: one is a day of a certain month (25th May), the other is the vaguely stated “Russian propaganda”. However, the exact date is not mentioned because the year is not given, and the nature of any misinformation or disinformation allegedly from Russia is not specified. What if this was an excerpt from a longer interview filmed in 2022 that, for some reason or other, wasn’t published at that time? Such an engagement would have certainly represented a serious appointment in Zaluzhny’s calendar, and it is eminently more believable that he would participate in it then more than a propaganda gimmick now that was beneath the dignity of his position.

The biggest clue that the case might be as just explained is exactly how the precise date is not given. Remember, this video was released in an attempt to document Zaluzhny as being alive, and as such should have taken the opportunity to state the day, month and year of the filming. Indeed, it is quite astonishing that it did not. The explanation for this incredible omission is that the film originally wasn’t intended for the job it now performs.

Of course, a criticism that can be levelled at this idea involves the unlikelihood of the coincidence that is being suggested. On the other hand, it explains the delay in the film’s emergence, as follows: the Ukrainians learn of Zaluzhny’s demise and search material already prepared that features him (including a pre-recorded address for the university). The ideas is to present him in a live situation. Being extremely lucky they find footage from an abandoned project filmed in May 2022, but they must wait half a month before it can be aired.

If this theory is too fanciful for the reader, then the explanation for why Zaluzhny must twat about (the most appropriate English expression) taking part in tableaus† for propaganda must be that he is dead or otherwise severely incapacitated so that a body double‡ or some other camera trickery is used to create an impression of him, or he is yet alive and well but somehow afflicted so that any appearance he makes mustn’t offer any opportunity for too much scrutiny for to discover any new Russian multi-launched rocket associated deficiency.

Ruling everything else out, the only other explanation for what one can see in the image below (see footnote for details)  is that Zaluzhny no longer holds position that would mean he had neither responsibility nor respect or reputation to maintain that would prevent him. Can you imagine, reader, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin – the British equivalent – doing the same gurning and chuckling at camera as if perhaps a mental patient?

Of course, whatever reason that Zaluzhny could be Commander-in-Chief in name only – whether he was injured or in fact alienated politically – it would ultimately involve the critical importance of maintaining Ukrainian morale. It is really quite feasible that the people who are keeping Ukraine in the conflict by smoke and mirrors alone would not welcome it being made public that Zaluzhny – the man who was in charge at the “re-conquest” of Kharkov and Kherson (as per the Ukrainian perspective) – is now persona non grata, or nulla persona – or whatever the Latin is for being generally incapable and unneeded.

With the imperative of maintaining Ukrainian morale being one thing and reality being another, the only thing that one can take away from the completely self-undermining operation to prove Zaluzhny an alive and able head honcho of Ukrainian Armed Force’s is that he is not. One way or another, Zaluzhny is incapacitated so that he can’t be that thing claimed of him. For the record, the author thinks he is dead.

At the same time, there’s no doubt that such a conviction is going to be appear to be disproved time over again when Zaluzhny appears in Commander-in-Chief capacity, fulfilling official engagements, meeting foreign counterparts, launching Bucha armoured boats into service, etc – and that’s only to be expected. The people who run the Ukrainian military and are conducting its intelligence affairs are the same people who Orwell was writing about when he explained how Comrade Ogilvy only existed in the minds of the consumers of Party propaganda – which is all there was in real life in England in 1940 by way of news. It’s all there is now. These people by now are quite expert at creating totally convincing illusions.

So, the Ukrainians will have their hero C-in-C for just as long as the wizards see that it is necessary. But ultimately, of course, it doesn’t matter. As stated before at this site, the Russians are interested in acts by which they assert their will, and quite capable of executing them, and there is nothing to be done against that no matter how much make believe is created on the Ukrainian side. Zaluzhny is alive. Zaluzhny is dead. The only way it really matters is how the Russian military – who will have their own idea better than we can what with having their ways to spy – uses the information in their irresistible dictation of reality on the ground.

† There was another brief appearance released on 26th May. All too evidently it was filmed at the same time as the 25th May footage (same clothes, same company). Zaluzhny basically waved at the camera (see image above).

‡ The reader may well have come across demonstrations of Zaluzhny’s eye colour having changed to brown in the new material from the blue they were before. It is mentioned here for the record, but the author makes no conclusions by it, having not investigated. It could be a phenomenon of light. Body doubles, whatever their eye colour (when less care is being taken on the special effects minutiae), are also certainly not unheard of.