General Nazarov claims the government has broken an unspoken agreement with the military, discussing pressure on Zaluzhny, the "surrender" of the south, and negotiations with Russia.

In February, it will be a year since Valerii Zaluzhnyi lost his position as Commander-in-Chief. Officially, no one has confirmed that the reason was a conflict between the commander and President Volodymyr Zelensky. However, off the record, the circles of both individuals hinted at this.

The now-former advisor to the Commander-in-Chief Viktor Nazarov confirmed in an interview with "Telegraph" that tensions between the leaders began after the failures of the counteroffensive in 2023, which did not yield the expected results. Additionally, there were concerns at Bankova about Zaluzhnyi's political ambitions.

Currently, the ex-commander is serving as an ambassador in Britain. However, the criminal case regarding the surrender of the south is still under investigation. Nazarov, in a conversation with "Telegraph," does not rule out that it could be used as leverage against Zaluzhnyi.

Moreover, the first attempts to bring Ukrainian generals to justice for surrendering territories in 2024 suggest that the authorities have taken a step toward losing the trust of the military, according to Nazarov. This signals that the political leadership might be trying to hold the military accountable for the start of the war in 2022.

"The authorities have taken a dangerous step"

— Recently, many top military officials have begun to publicly state that there were no official orders from the authorities regarding the Russian invasion in 2022. General Serhii Naiev mentioned this, as did you in your last interview. Why are these discussions happening now?

— There is an unwritten rule that anyone can make mistakes: both civilians and military personnel. A case in point is the attack on Israel in October 2023. Both sides certainly made mistakes. I think they will sort this out when everything is over. Although, I am confident that it will not lead to criminal prosecution. But while the war is ongoing, no one should, so to speak, "set up" anyone or, even more so, bring them to criminal responsibility. This undermines trust.

For several years in Ukraine, this unwritten rule, by the way, enshrined in the principle of combat immunity, has not been violated. In the West, it is referred to as the Rendulic Rule (commanders must assess the military necessity of actions based on the information available to them at the time of decision-making. Commanders cannot be judged based on information that emerges later. — Ed.). We should not evaluate people from the perspective of our future experiences. We must understand what guided them, what their perception was at the time they made those decisions.

Now this rule has been violated. Evidence of this is the prosecution of military personnel. In my view, by this action, the political authorities have violated the agreement and legal norm of combat immunity. I will not assess the motives behind this decision, but the authorities have taken a dangerous step.

— This criminal case specifically concerns the Russian offensive in the Kharkiv region in 2024.

— That doesn't matter. Many have lost patience. But it has not yet exceeded the permissible limits, so to speak. It is known that criminal proceedings regarding the occupation of the south have been open for almost two years. Until recently, this seemed clear, because the country, and the army in particular, was not prepared to repel the aggression. This is the main reason for the loss of part of the southern territory. Why was a criminal case opened? As the prosecution argued in my case in 2014: a plane was shot down, people died, we had to open a case. Although there is an article in the Criminal Code, Article 42 "Action Related to Risk." That is what it is about. So why do we have a selective approach? It turns out that only the loss of part of the territory raises questions. This looks somewhat biased.

(The head of the ATO headquarters, Major General Viktor Nazarov, was found guilty by a court for the deaths of Ukrainian servicemen in the downed Il-76 by separatists while landing at Luhansk airport in June 2014 — at that time, 9 crew members and 40 paratroopers from the 25th Airborne Brigade perished. Nazarov was sentenced to 7 years in prison, but in 2021, the Supreme Court acquitted Nazarov and closed the case due to the absence of elements of a criminal offense in his actions. — Ed.)

And when the recent story about the arrests of military personnel emerged, it became clear that perhaps the previous unwritten agreement and the unspoken Rendulic Rule no longer exist. This explains the military's motives and the authorities' reaction. In my firm belief, this is a mistake that should not have been made and that must be corrected immediately to restore the military's trust.

— Is it possible to do this now?

— It is always possible.

** At a press conference with the president on February 23, 2025, when asked by "Telegraph" regarding the criminal prosecution of generals, Volodymyr Zelensky emphasized that trust between the military command and political leadership is not lost. According to the president, questions arose due to the deaths of a large number of soldiers. Read the full response here.

"There may be political pressure on Zaluzhnyi"

— You mentioned the criminal case regarding the occupation of the south. Do you know how it is progressing? Are official charges being prepared?

– I do not know what they have in mind. During my service as an advisor and then chief consultant to the Commander-in-Chief, I had access to some documents related to this case. In my opinion, there is simply a stretching of the facts, so to speak. As a professional, I could not remain silent.

On one hand, I brought some things into the public domain, advised colleagues on some matters, and performed my functional duties. This includes legal support, protecting servicemen from illegal criminal prosecution. In my view, there is a blatant excess of responsibility solely on the military. It looks like an attempt to make the military scapegoats. I have repeatedly pointed out that when a country is at war and holding the line, especially against such a powerful enemy as Russia, military measures alone will not suffice. A comprehensive approach must be taken, including political, diplomatic, economic, scientific, informational, social, and legal measures.

In the documents I have seen, there is no mention of justice. It doesn’t even appear to be an attempt to objectively investigate the factual circumstances of what happened. In military affairs, anything can happen: you may seem to plan everything well on paper, yet achieve a different result than you wanted. Because the enemy managed to outsmart or surpass you in some way.

— You say that the military is being made scapegoats. Are they trying to make the former Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhnyi guilty for the surrender of the south?

— As far as I know, he has not been summoned for questioning. Most likely, there are no testimonies from him related to this case.

But if his subordinates are being interrogated and documents are being collected, it either directly or indirectly touches on the Commander-in-Chief, whoever he may be. At the same time, the Commander-in-Chief is a position in the Armed Forces that cannot be detached from any processes. It is hard to imagine a situation where something happens in the south or anywhere else, and he is on a mission somewhere or unaware of what is happening there. He still influences all these matters.

I am not sure that for political reasons anyone is ready to declare suspicions against Zaluzhnyi. But as a method of political pressure, it could work. I do not rule that out.

"On February 24, we were a step away from the abyss"

— A key question for many Ukrainians that still arises: was Ukraine ready for February 24 or not?

— This question should be answered in two parts.

In general terms, to fight with our own forces for three years — no. From the standpoint of immediate preparation, to have time to fight — yes. What do I mean? Regardless of which power was in place at the start of aggression or before that since 2014, they all, as they say, have sins. Moral sins, and perhaps multifaceted ones. They never cared about the army or defense. Even the experience of ATO and OOS taught them nothing. This is my deep conviction, and I am not afraid to say it.

Initially, when a scandal occurs, some movements begin. Then, when the situation seems to stabilize, as it was with ATO, the military becomes unnecessary because the Minsk agreements are signed