Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Ukraine’s former commander-in-chief and now ambassador to the United Kingdom, has given an interview to the Associated Press that sets out, in unusual detail, his disagreements with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over both military decision-making and civil–military relations inside wartime Ukraine.

The interview, published on 18 February 2026, has prompted a fresh round of debate in Kyiv about the failed 2023 counteroffensive and the political balance of power as discussion grows about eventual post-war elections.

Two claims in particular have attracted attention. The first concerns Zaluzhnyi’s account of why the 2023 counteroffensive did not achieve the breakthrough that many in Ukraine and among its partners had hoped for. The second is his description of an incident in September 2022 in which, he says, Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) officers attempted to search a command facility while British officers were present.

The 2023 counteroffensive and the question of concentration of force

In the AP interview, Zaluzhnyi argues that the offensive plan prepared with Ukraine’s partners depended on concentrating resources on a main axis, rather than dispersing forces across multiple directions. He says the necessary resources were not provided for the decisive operation he envisaged and that available capabilities were spread more broadly along the front.

The argument has been echoed in Ukrainian media commentary which reconstructs the 2023 campaign as a choice between a single main effort in southern Zaporizhzhia region and parallel pushes elsewhere. In this account, the core operational concept was an advance towards Tokmak and then Melitopol, with the strategic objective of severing Russian ground lines of communication to forces positioned in parts of southern Ukraine. The operational logic focused on disrupting logistics routes that support Russian deployments across the wider theatre, including supply flows routed through occupied territory and onward towards the front.

The same commentary argues that Kyiv simultaneously pursued other offensives: pressure around Bakhmut and an additional advance from the Velyka Novosilka area towards the Volnovakha direction. Proponents of this interpretation say that dividing formations, artillery ammunition and engineering assets across several major efforts reduced the chances of success on the principal axis in Zaporizhzhia.

Zaluzhnyi’s interview also revives an older dispute about timing. Critics of the 2023 approach have long argued that delays allowed Russian forces to strengthen layered defences in the south. By mid-2023, Russia had established extensive prepared positions, including minefields, anti-tank obstacles and fortified lines, increasing the cost of any frontal advance and reducing prospects for rapid manoeuvre. Western reporting at the time frequently noted the scale of Russian defensive preparations in the sector Ukraine sought to breach.

Zelenskyy, for his part, has previously argued that Ukraine faced a gap between partner expectations for an earlier start and delays in the delivery of key weapons systems and munitions. The AP and Reuters reporting on the new Zaluzhnyi interview frames the dispute differently: Zaluzhnyi describes the problem primarily as a domestic decision about allocation of forces and priorities, rather than solely the volume or pace of Western supply.

The alleged 2022 raid and the SBU response

The second major element of the interview concerns Zaluzhnyi’s claim that, in mid-September 2022, SBU officers entered or sought access to a covert backup command post connected to him. He says the incident took place while a group of British officers was present, and that he viewed the episode as intimidation. He also says he contacted Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, warning that he would call in military reinforcement to prevent unauthorised access to sensitive material.

The SBU has disputed the characterisation. In statements reported by AP and Ukrainian outlets, it said it had been checking several addresses as part of an organised crime investigation unrelated to Zaluzhnyi and that no search was conducted at the address once it was identified as a command facility.

The AP noted that it could not independently verify Zaluzhnyi’s account of the incident.

Political implications and the elections question

The publication of these claims comes amid periodic discussion inside Ukraine about the conditions under which elections could be held after the war. Zaluzhnyi remains one of the most recognisable figures produced by the wartime mobilisation and has been widely viewed as a potential challenger to Zelenskyy in any future contest, though he has not declared an intention to run. Reuters reported that Zaluzhnyi avoided committing himself on political plans while framing the interview as a matter of principle and accountability.

For now, the immediate significance is less electoral arithmetic than the fact of a public rupture. Ukraine has largely maintained a unified wartime political posture since 2022, with many disagreements confined to private channels. By laying out a narrative of strategic disagreement over the 2023 counteroffensive and raising a sensitive allegation involving domestic security services, Zaluzhnyi has introduced new pressure points into Kyiv’s wartime politics at a moment when military prospects and external support remain contested.