Askold Lozynskyj
One negative characteristic of a free press is the tendency to highlight controversies that are much lesser in reality than in print. There is a logic to this, albeit strange predilection. Sure there is the everyone-is-an-expert tendency. Mostly we look to the press for information based on facts. Granted opinions are often presented and respected or ignored but they appear in separate columns. The problem arises when opinions are presented as facts. It often takes a particularly sharp or cynical reader to deal with the bias.
There is no metaphysically “free press.” All press, editors, editorial boards and journalists are to some degree accountable to their publishers. Some are more accountable than others. Granted, it’s much better than state press, but not always. Consider Fox News or News Max.
The free press is very competitive. Every reporter strives to be ahead of his competitors, to be read by more readers. For that the report must be first in time or more interesting. Serious journalism attracts only a certain number of readers. The balance relies on sensationalism which dilutes veracity and credibility.
An issue of some controversy has come up in Ukraine, which the world seems to have taken up for an irrational debate where participants know little of the facts and even less about conditions in Ukraine. Defense Minister Mykhaylo Fedorov and Commander General Oleksandr Syrskyj, both military strategists, are being debated worldwide, along with President Zelensky’s decision to dismiss the Minister and retain the General.
It has not become a paralyzing controversy because their mutual boss managed to end it. That’s what presidents should do. The American press is not used to that since Trump usually exacerbates conflicts and controversies. Who is right in any conflict has to be decided by a mediator and the president of a country is the mediator-in-chief. That decision is often made not necessarily on issues of right or wrong, but on who would be more difficult to replace.
Why do I insist that this matter is not a controversy in Ukraine? Because Ukrainians are hot-headed with very strong opinions and war strategies concern every person living in Ukraine, especially since five hundred drones and missiles are targeted at Ukraine every night. The fact that only some one thousand people took to the streets of a multimillion-populated city like Kyiv is strong evidence that this is not a major issue in Ukraine. The New York Times recently carried a photo of demonstrators in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city. The numbers were relatively sparse, but I found gratification in the fact that the cardboard slogans were all in Ukrainian. Not so long ago Kharkiv was predominantly Russian speaking. The war does carry benefits.
Frankly speaking both Syrskyj and Fedorov have had a measure of success. Fedorov’s success has appeared more significant because it has been more striking reaching into long-occupied territory like Crimea and, more impressively, long range reaching into St. Petersburg, Moscow and even Omsk in southern Siberia. Ukraine was not supposed to possess the resources or know-how to reach those places.
After his dismissal Mykhaylo Fedorov convened a press conference during which he was somewhat less than humble and went after Syrskyj. He should never have done that. No matter how good a case he may have had, that press conference immediately disqualified him from any return or further consideration. If his purpose was to garner sympathy or support, the press conference achieved neither.
So who is responsible for Ukraine’s success? Zelensky, Zaluzhny, Syrskyj, Fedorov, Fire Point, etc,? The answer is all. But most importantly the heroic people of Ukraine. This is not a matter of right or wrong.
President Zelensky has pointed out that the main issue is unity. Only a united nation can win this war. What is paramount at this juncture is supporting the President of Ukraine. He ultimately has to make the decision and so he has. The people have to go along with it. It would appear that there was a clash of both strategies and personalities. That invariably occurs during times of great difficulty. The fact that President Zelensky listens to the people is laudable. Even in this matter he seeks compromise; he offered Fedorov an advisory position. Fedorov declined. But Zelensky may find a way to defuse Fedorov’s disappointment and accommodate both Syrskyj’s and Fedorov’s strategies. President Zelensky’s ego will not get in the way.
But the war continues, and decisions will not be predicated on debates in the Western press or its readers. In this case, decisions will not be made on the streets of Ukrainian cities; although democracy prevails, martial law takes precedence. My suggestion to those offering advice is to assist tangibly. Fund a drone, an interceptor, or a motor vehicle and leave strategizing to those on the ground, who are actually doing the fighting.
July 19, 2026