By Serge Schmemann
The essence of the long-anticipated “victory plan” for Ukraine unveiled by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this autumn essentially states: If you provide me with what I’ve been seeking — NATO membership and the go-ahead to launch Western missiles into Russian territory — I might conclude the conflict by next year.
These demands are not particularly novel. The pressing factor is the timing: The American elections, along with the actions of President Joe Biden before his term ends, will significantly impact the course of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Full NATO membership is off the table for Ukraine until the conflict concludes. The North Atlantic Alliance has already affirmed that Ukraine is on a path to membership that cannot be reversed, but that’s as far as they are willing to progress for now. However, a growing number of member states have suggested they would permit the usage of NATO missiles deep into Russia.
Biden is not onboard, at least not yet. He fears that NATO strikes within Russia would escalate Western involvement in the conflict to a new level. This would also breach a red line set by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin has warned that long-range attacks against Russia “will signify that NATO nations — the United States and European countries — are at war with Russia.”
An increasing number of NATO allies disagree and are pushing the United States to authorize Ukraine to act. They argue that Russia has no qualms about employing weaponry from China, North Korea, or Iran against Ukraine. “Are you saying that Putin is not using — is not deploying — every asset at his disposal against Ukraine?” questioned Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal.
Any decision Biden makes (or refrains from making) in his closing weeks in office will shape a reality that the next president will have to navigate.
If Kamala Harris gains the presidency, she has generally committed to continuing the Biden administration’s military and economic support — totaling $174 billion pledged since the conflict began in February 2022, with $61 billion approved by Congress in April. However, a Harris administration could encounter growing pushback from certain Republicans and Democrats regarding full support, and it would likely be simpler for Harris to maintain already established actions than to initiate new ones.
Donald Trump poses a greater risk for Ukraine. He has claimed that he could resolve the war in just 24 hours if he returns to office. Though he hasn’t elaborated on how, his seemingly friendly relationship with Putin suggests the terms would not favor Ukrainians. Even for Trump, reversing a policy on long-range strikes might not be straightforward, given the strong support for Ukraine from the American public, including many Republicans.
Ukraine already has missiles from NATO allies, including American ones capable of hitting targets up to 190 miles within Russia, and they have been utilized against Russian positions in Crimea. However, that area is still recognized as occupied Ukrainian territory. Ukraine has also conducted operations inside Russia using drones and special forces against military objectives, as well as a military incursion into the Kursk region, which remains predominantly under Ukrainian control.
Yet, launching American, British, or French missiles deep into Russia would involve the allies directly in offensive actions on Russian soil, a level of confrontation that Biden has sought to avoid from the start. This may soon change. European officials noted that when British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited the White House in September, the president seemed on the brink of giving the go-ahead.
Whether striking Russia would genuinely alter the war’s dynamics is uncertain. Other advanced weapons, which the United States and NATO initially hesitated to provide — such as HIMARS artillery, the Abrams tank, F-16 fighter jets, and the ATACMS surface-to-surface missile — did not turn out to be game-changers.
The principal necessities in a conflict that stretches across vast terrain are artillery and manpower. Ukraine has stated it requires 20,000 shells daily for its Western artillery systems, yet it has been receiving far fewer than that.
The significance of acquiring sophisticated Western arms extends beyond their battlefield capabilities. A new commitment from the United States and its allies would also send a message to Putin that they remain engaged in the conflict and have faith in Zelenskyy, contrary to what he may expect.
A promise of substantial modern weaponry could also aid Zelenskyy in showing his country that if he does choose to negotiate with Russia, he will have the West’s backing. Zelenskyy continues to express a strong commitment to reclaiming all Ukrainian land, and the idea of yielding any territory to Russia for a cease-fire remains controversial in Ukraine. However, polling indicates that this rigid position is waning, and support for negotiations would likely be higher if Ukraine found itself in a stronger negotiating position.
Moreover, there is the stark reality on the ground. Russia currently occupies about one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory and is steadily advancing deeper into the Donbas region, which includes areas Putin has officially declared to be part of Russia. Russia is also continuously assaulting Ukrainian cities and power facilities with relentless drone and missile strikes, heralding a harsh winter ahead. Putin appears unfazed by the Russian lives and resources he is expending in his efforts to re-establish control over Ukraine.
Whether Putin is ready to engage in serious negotiations remains uncertain. However, Western policymakers concur that this is the only pathway to bring his brutal war to an end. Biden may not be the president who makes the congratulatory call to Zelenskyy upon peace being declared, but he can assist in keeping him engaged until that moment arrives.
