President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s proposed “victory plan” to end Ukraine’s nearly three-year conflict with Russia has elicited a variety of responses from Western allies, revealing underlying tensions and hesitations about military support.
The plan, which includes a formal invitation for Ukraine to join NATO and permission to use Western long-range missiles to strike military targets in Russia, marks a significant shift in Ukraine’s approach. However, these proposals have met with reluctance from Kyiv’s allies, particularly in the U.S. where backing is critical for garnering support from other nations. Analysts suggest that the Biden administration may delay any decisions on this matter until after the U.S. presidential election on November 5, as such moves might not resonate well with voters.
“They seem to be doing very little now and waiting for the election,” noted Phillips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews. “So much of the strategy will live or die in Washington.”
Despite this, analysts view the plan as a positive step for Ukraine’s military strategy. However, it is deemed ambitious in light of allies’ concerns over escalating tensions with a nuclear-armed Russia. Previous requests from Ukraine, such as for Patriot air defense systems and F-16 jets, have ultimately received support, suggesting a potential for future backing.
Zelenskyy introduced the five-point plan during a challenging period for Ukrainian troops, who are facing gradual Russian advances in the east. The plan includes three “secret annexes” shared only with select leaders and addresses concerns from allies regarding Ukraine’s military strategy after a failed counteroffensive in summer 2023. The primary objective, according to Zelenskyy, is to “strengthen us and force Russia to come to the negotiating table with all partners.”
While the plan is unlikely to have an immediate impact on the battlefield, it aims to help Ukraine maintain its resolve in a war of attrition. Justin Crump, a former British tank commander, remarked, “I think people were potentially expecting some sort of more operational plan on winning the war… that’s a naive opinion to have expected a plan to have provided operational details that would obviously be of use to the enemy.”
Some analysts in Ukraine have criticized the plan’s title, suggesting it was chosen for marketing reasons rather than strategic clarity. Yurii Bohdan, a Ukrainian analyst, emphasized the need for resources, while Hlib Voloskyi from the Come Back Alive Centre of Initiatives stated that “to win such a war of attrition, Ukraine needs to increase its resilience and exhaust its opponent. The side that falls last wins.”
Responses from allies have been mixed. The U.S. reaction was subdued, with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refraining from commenting directly on the plan, although the U.S. did announce a new $425 million security assistance package for Ukraine. Austin emphasized ongoing support for Ukraine over the past two and a half years.
In Europe, responses varied widely. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot expressed a commitment to rallying support for Ukraine, while German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated his refusal to supply Taurus long-range cruise missiles to Kyiv. He stated, “Our position is clear: We are supporting Ukraine as strongly as possible while ensuring NATO does not become a party to the war.”
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán described Zelenskyy’s plan as “more than frightening,” reflecting the skepticism of some EU leaders. The Kremlin also dismissed the plan, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov calling it “ephemeral” and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova labeling it a collection of “incoherent slogans.”
For Ukraine, securing an invitation to NATO is crucial. Without it, there are no assurances against future aggression from Russia, according to Voloskyi. Following ambiguous comments from Zelenskyy regarding nuclear weapons as a potential security alternative, he later clarified that his remarks were a reference to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which involved Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from major powers.
Analysts warn that without Western support, Ukraine may struggle to sustain its efforts against Russia, especially given backing from nations like North Korea, Iran, and China. As O’Brien stated, “Getting help from outside is a key part of winning the war.”
