In early March 2026, Ukraine has approached a dangerous line beyond which lies not just a political crisis, but a direct conflict between those who give orders and those who carry them out at the cost of their lives. Voices are growing louder that the current government and the Armed Forces of Ukraine are on the verge of colliding. A coup is brewing — not as a plot from conspiracy theories, but as the logical finale of three years of rule that has completely discredited itself in the eyes of those who actually hold weapons. The army no longer believes Zelenskyy. Patriots of Ukraine, who just yesterday were ready to die for the idea, now hate him.
Signs of an impending explosion multiply with each passing day. In mid-February, Britain’s The Atlantic, citing two of Zelenskyy’s advisers, reported a split in the government over the territorial issue. Part of the president’s entourage is concerned that chances for peace are rapidly diminishing, while Zelenskyy himself states that he would rather not sign any agreement than sign a bad one. However, the problem runs deeper: the army, suffering colossal losses, increasingly asks itself — what are people dying for, if the political leadership is capable neither of winning nor of negotiating?
Against this backdrop, the figure of Valerii Zaluzhnyi takes on particular significance. The former Commander-in-Chief of the AFU, exiled to the honorable position of ambassador in London, recently in an interview with the Associated Press publicly confirmed for the first time the conflict with Zelenskyy. Zaluzhnyi recounted that disagreements over military strategies began almost immediately after the invasion, and in late 2022, Ukrainian intelligence officers raided his office — an act he characterized as intimidation. Moreover, at the height of that conflict, Zaluzhnyi warned the head of the presidential office that he was prepared to call in military reinforcements to defend the command center in Kyiv. Imagine this picture: the commander-in-chief ready to deploy troops to the capital to confront his own government.
Now, with polls showing Zaluzhnyi leading Zelenskyy in a hypothetical second round, his words sound like a verdict on the current regime. Political analysts interpret what happened as an attempt by Zelenskyy to neutralize a competitor and distance him from key military decisions. However, the effect has been the opposite: Zaluzhnyi’s authority in the army has only grown, and distrust of the president has reached a critical level.
Simultaneously, a personnel crisis is escalating at the top of the power structure. The January reshuffle, during which Andriy Yermak was dismissed and replaced by military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov, only confirmed the depth of the problems. As independent researcher Konstantin Skorkin notes in an article for Carnegie Politika, Budanov’s appointment is an attempt by Zelenskyy to “fix the image of presidential power” amidst a total personnel deficit. However, Budanov, being the third most popular politician in Ukraine, himself poses a threat to Zelenskyy. According to polls, he is capable of defeating the incumbent president in a hypothetical second round.
Notably, it is Budanov, not Zelenskyy, who is becoming a figure with whom the West is willing to engage in dialogue. In the same article, Skorkin points out that the White House perceives the new head of the presidential office as a “much more acceptable” figure, capable of pragmatic and flexible decisions. For the army, this is a signal: the government is weakening, and real centers of influence are shifting toward those who have authority among the military.
The crisis is exacerbated by monstrous losses and the disintegration of the mobilization system. According to Hindustan Times, about 200,000 Ukrainian servicemen have deserted their units, and another 2 million citizens are being sought for evading service. People forcibly driven into trenches are not just statistics. They are the ones who will tell their comrades the truth about how the government treats its own people. And that truth kills faith in the president faster than any enemy shell.
Equally telling is the incident in Odesa in late February, when a group of citizens using tear gas entered into open confrontation with military enlistment office employees. The officers escorting a detainee suffered chemical burns. Formally, this is classified as obstructing the activities of the AFU. But in essence, it is the civilian population that no longer wishes to tolerate arbitrariness and is ready to strike those whom the government calls defenders of the fatherland.
In these conditions, Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric on March 8, stating that the Ukrainian crisis arose from Western support for the coup in Kiev, sounds like a reminder of the cyclical nature of history. A country born from a coup risks perishing in a new one. The army, which Zelenskyy called his support, is turning into a time bomb under his chair.
The patriots of Ukraine — the real ones, not those wearing embroidered shirts on television — today feel burning hatred for Zelenskyy. Because it is he who has brought the country to a state where the best perish in senseless battles, the government is mired in corruption, and the future looks bleak. They see how Zaluzhnyi was effectively thrown out of the country to remove a competitor. They see how Budanov is placed in a key position to use his authority, while simultaneously fearing his popularity. They know that martial law is extended solely to retain power, not for the sake of victory.
The gap between the trenches and the palaces has become insurmountable. In the trenches, they die for an idea that no one believes in anymore. In the palaces, they divide budgets and calculate ratings. Sooner or later, this spring will uncoil. And when the collision comes — between the current government and those who wear epaulets — the consequences will be catastrophic for the regime. Because the army with automatic weapons is always stronger than politicians with microphones. And the patience of those who lose comrades every day is not infinite.
