A major event recently happened in Ukraine, and the legend that has been circulating for more than a month has landed.
Ukraine** Vladimir Zelensky announced on the 8th that Army Commander Alexander Syrsky succeeded Valery Zaluzhny as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. What is the real reason behind this dismissal?
Difference Between Politician and Bureaucrat
In this case, I would like to talk about two identities that have been misunderstood for a long time, one is a politician and the other is a bureaucrat.
People often confuse politicians and bureaucrats as a community of interests, but this is clearly not the case. Zelensky was a politician, and Zaluzhny would have been a bureaucrat. The will and policy goals of the politician are carried out through a bureaucratic system, and the bureaucracy is characterized by obeying orders, he is a complete instrument, and his own will is not important at all, and cannot even be highlighted.
Bureaucratic promotion is promoted at the level of promotion, and Zelensky is Zaluzhny's promoter. In order to be promoted, it is a crucial thing to obey the will of the superiors. The peculiarities of the bureaucratic system, Turlock of the school of public choice made it very clear, he said:
Bureaucracy is a neutral word, and there are probably three characteristics of this organization: First, employers and employees in the organization do not directly distribute income from the income of this organization. Second, at least part of the working capital of this organization does not come from their operations, and the money is transferred from other places. Thirdly, everyone under the bureaucracy, his performance evaluation is basically determined by his superiors. What your boss thinks of you will fundamentally determine your future. 
The closer the boss is to him, the greater the influence on him. The farther away his boss is, the less influence he has on him, even if he holds a higher position. In this system, they also pursue money, but not directly. There is a theory called the 3Ps, which are the right to power, office allowances, parks, and the opportunity to take care of subordinates Patronage. It's that whatever you do, it's important to be ambitious, especially in a bureaucracy. But in this system, there is another criterion for promotion, which is humility. As a smart and ambitious person, the most important thing to show is humility, the smarter you are, the more humble you are, and those who are arrogant are not ambitious. If a person in this system wants to survive, he must be approved by his superiors. **Within the system, screening will be carried out again and again, and unsuitable people will be eliminated continuously. Only those who meet the wishes of their superiors can survive the screening again and again and survive in the system. If you want to be a great section chief, you must first become a section chief, and if you want to be a great councillor, you must first become a councillor. It doesn't matter what kind of person you are, what kind of ideals and aspirations you have before you enter the bureaucracy. After baptism again and again, all that can be left are people who are very close in ideas, experiences, and attitudes. The reason for the dismissal was the competition of politicians
But Zelensky is not a bureaucrat, he is a politician, he does not need to act according to this set of models, he was elected. Even a politician who has been promoted from the bureaucracy has to change his behavior pattern from the moment he becomes a politician. Putin is a politician who has risen through the bureaucracy. Who are the politicians? For example, those senators, representatives, as well as the United States**, Ukraine**, Russia**. Regardless of what these people did before, when he became a politician, he did not make it his first priority to obey the instructions of his superiors, but to cater to public opinion and gain popularity. 
In the long run, the status of a politician depends on what the general public thinks of him. And the bureaucrats are only ** by the choice of his superiors. The reason why Zaluzhny was killed by Zelensky is that he has become a politician in Ukraine, and during the war, he was not a bureaucrat subordinate to his superiors, but actively participated in public **, building up his personal prestige.
Zaluzhny is widely popular among the Ukrainian population and is known as the "Iron General". A poll at the end of last year showed that Zaluzhny's approval rating was more than 90 percent, higher than Zelensky's 77 percent. According to Agence France-Presse, Zaluzhny has a high prestige among the Ukrainian army, and many soldiers see him as a father-like figure. An example of Zaluzhny becoming a politician is that he openly accepted the British magazine The Economist and said that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has entered the stage of a war of attrition, and the battlefield is in a "stalemate", which may benefit the Russian side, and Ukraine must rebuild its military strength. And this point of view, expressed as a politician, because his superiors do not agree. Zelensky publicly denied this statement and demanded that Zaluzhny and the General Staff of the Ukrainian army bear the main responsibility for the situation on the battlefield, and "military personnel must not interfere in politics." The contradictions between the two sides are becoming increasingly acute and open. 
Zaluzhny frequently asserts himself externally and builds his personal prestige with only one purpose, that is, to become a politician, then to become Zelensky's political competitor. Regardless of the politician, the means by which they maintain their political position is to gain prestige and at the same time strike at rivals, and Zelensky has personnel power in his hands, and of course he will replace Zaluzhny. But didn't you just kill your political opponents? Not necessarily. Because Zaluzhny can give up his bureaucratic position and participate in political elections, even if he is a military commentator, he can still pose a threat to Zelensky's political position. Politicians do not align with bureaucratic interests
Zelensky once made a big move, that is, he removed all the recruiting stations at once. Because these ** can make people not serve in the military by collecting money. This shows where are the interests of the bureaucracy? It lies in the exchange of power for interests. They want to have power because power can be exchanged for money. 
But such an action, as soon as it is **, will form a blow to the prestige of the Zelensky regime. You will find that the interests of the bureaucrats are in conflict with the politicians. The specific bureaucracy doesn't really care which politician comes to power. If you change politicians or even monarchs, they are still bureaucrats, and bureaucrats have long formed a huge interest group, and they have made the profession of bureaucracy a barrier to competition through complex legal and administrative control means. How can ordinary people understand complex customs rules? What about the various regulatory rules? Any politician who comes to power needs to rely on a professional bureaucracy. When the ancient kings came to power, they also had to use a large number of officials from the previous dynasty, because they couldn't play without them, and you couldn't collect your money, grain, and taxes. That's why they don't care which politician comes to power, and if someone else comes to power, I will be my official just like that. This relationship has been further strengthened by the civil service system that has developed in modern republican states. They even have the ability to stand up to politicians. 
When Trump came to power, he boasted that he wanted to burn most of the regulatory laws in the United States, but these regulatory laws were the power of the bureaucracy, and the result was not successful. Therefore, within a ** organization, it is actually divided into two major interest groups, namely politicians and bureaucrats. The relationship between these two interest groups is incomparably complex. If the bureaucrats want to get more power, it is very difficult for them to directly seize power on their own, and they need to use politicians, such as the US Congress, to control the source of the law. And the continuous expansion of power by politicians is not because of the concrete economic benefits of power, but because of the act of expanding power, which may bring him prestige. Obama's Medicare for All Act is a system of power control, in which the federal government is given the power to regulate all health insurance companies, even their products and profit margins. For Obama himself, such regulation does not directly bring economic benefits, but it can bring enormous prestige, which is beneficial to his personal position in power and political influence within the Democratic Party. But these controls are of direct economic interest to the bureaucracy. In some ostensibly corrupt countries, these regulatory interests can be directly turned into bribery, and in the United States, these regulations can allow the best to enter the enterprise at any time as an executive and make money legally. Therefore, in the case of the people's demand for management, the expansion of power is beneficial to politicians and bureaucrats, and it can be said to be a feast of power. 
If the people have the need to reduce power and form a huge force, then the bureaucracy is vulnerable, and their power is almost impossible to continue to maintain under the turbulent power, because the bureaucracy does not have the ability to influence the public, they are just a top-down order execution system. At this point, politicians have the prestige in their hands and can reform the bureaucracy, which can only passively accept it. The bureaucracy is obviously worried about this risk, and the way they deal with it is to pull more people into the bureaucracy, for example, 20% of Argentina's population at its peak are civil servants, plus their families, this is a powerful force, and no one can move them. Their privileged position can be maintained. Politicians take turns, but their status is as stable as an old dog. They also have a lot of means to fight back against politicians, such as police unions, doctors' (civil servants) unions, ** staff unions, cleaners' unions, etc., if you want to attack me, then, I will paralyze the city.
The bureaucracy also uses the expert system to fight for the budget. Retired generals in many countries have participated in the call for an increase in the military budget, and they have been preaching every day how big the external threat is, and the result of this appeal is that the military budget has been increasing, and the interests of the bureaucracy are still stable. Republican Trump and Democratic Sanders both have a common political philosophy, called cleaning up the swamp in Washington, saying that the United States has deep **. 
They are right, and here they are referring to the bureaucratic system. These bureaucrats, no matter which politician comes to power, they can force politicians to do what they want through the huge state apparatus that they are manipulating. For example, Trump, a politician who claims to be a small **, after taking office, US federal spending has reached new highs every year, and military spending has been ** every year, and he can't solve these problems.
Without the cooperation of the bureaucracy, it will be difficult for a politician to move forward. Bureaucrats can despise politicians, and they can even embarrass them. Therefore, even a politician with strong popular support sometimes has to compromise with the bureaucracy, without which he may not be able to sit still. The real reason
The relationship between a politician and the bureaucracy is completely different from that of a business owner and its employees.
In the market mechanism, business owners and employees are in a transactional relationship, they cooperate and win-win, and their long-term interests are the same.
There is no real transactional relationship between politicians and the bureaucracy under private property rights, they are merely exchanging the benefits of so-called positions of power.
Therefore, the contradiction between them is inevitable. Some bureaucrats want to be politicians and therefore become competitors to politicians, and some bureaucrats want to expand their powers, but politicians are constrained by public opinion.
Most bureaucrats only think about personal interests and departmental interests, but politicians need to think about some external issues of decency. This has led to more and more conflicts between them.
In the final analysis, a non-market-oriented organization will inevitably fall into this kind of struggle. It is only in the market that people can form long-term and harmonious interests. No political solution can solve the problem between bureaucrats and politicians, and only a return to the market, where everyone is subordinate to the consumer, can completely eradicate this millennia-old struggle. In the long run, only by seeing the political issues clearly and not believing in politics but believing in the market can these chaos end.