By Kim Barker, Eric Schmitt, Steven Erlanger and Anton Troianovski
For several weeks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been urging Western leaders to back his proposed victory strategy, which he asserts will conclude the conflict with Russia by next year. Yet, the support has been notably tepid.
No nation has consented to let Ukraine target military sites deep within Russia using Western long-range missiles. Moreover, no significant power has publicly supported the idea of integrating Ukraine into NATO while hostilities persist.
In light of these circumstances, Zelenskyy’s recent tour through the United States and Europe over the past six weeks could be perceived as unsuccessful.
However, many military analysts and diplomats suggest that the real target audience for his plan may be domestic. Zelenskyy seeks to utilize his persuasive efforts — including a recent speech to Parliament — to reassure Ukrainians that he has exerted every possible effort, ready them for the likelihood of needing to negotiate, and provide them with a convenient target for blame: the West.
With diminishing Western backing, setbacks along the eastern front and in Russia’s Kursk region, alongside an impending U.S. election that could lead to a starkly different stance toward Ukraine, Zelenskyy may find himself with very few alternatives.
“He has to go hat in hand to promote the plan, sort of carve out a stance and then assert at home, having made the request, that this is what we must do now,” stated Michael John Williams, an international relations professor at Syracuse University and a former advisor to NATO. He added: “At least he can claim he has made an effort. He has explored all options.”
Zelenskyy is doing everything he can to secure commitments from the United States and other allies for what Ukraine considers essential, enabling him to negotiate from a position of prowess. The Ukrainian president is attempting to leverage the deployment of North Korean troops to assist Russian forces in Kursk — confirmed by NATO’s chief on Monday — to generate traction for his plan.
During a press conference with reporters last week, Zelenskyy indicated that there wasn’t an obvious Plan B if Western support failed to materialize.
“I’m not demanding that they follow my exact approach,” Zelenskyy said. “I indicated it would be effective. If one has an alternative, then please, proceed.”
He reaffirmed his opposition to giving up any territory. However, he also mentioned the need for diplomatic measures to tackle issues like safeguarding energy infrastructure and creating a secure shipping route out of Ukraine in the Black Sea.
Furthermore, he suggested an approach that might allow Ukraine to maintain dignity even if it does not recover all land annexed by Russia. “No one will formally recognize the occupied regions as belonging to other nations,” he stated.
U.S. officials have privately expressed some frustration with Zelenskyy’s victory strategy, deeming it impractical and overly reliant on Western assistance. They spoke anonymously to reveal sensitive military details.
As an illustration: In a section not disclosed to the public, Zelenskyy suggested implementing a “non-nuclear deterrence package,” requesting Tomahawk missiles, a demand deemed completely impractical by a senior U.S. official. A Tomahawk missile boasts a range of 1,500 miles, exceeding the range of the long-range missile systems known as ATACMS that Ukraine received this year by more than seven times. Additionally, the U.S. has only supplied a finite number of those, according to senior officials.
Moreover, Ukraine has not convincingly demonstrated to Washington how it would employ the long-range weaponry, the U.S. officials noted. The target list within Russia far surpasses the available missiles that the U.S. or any ally could provide without jeopardizing missile availability for potential scenarios in the Middle East and Asia, they assessed.
Four U.S. officials recently informed The New York Times that Zelenskyy was taken aback when President Joe Biden did not authorize the use of U.S. long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia during their meeting in Washington in September. Historically, Biden has often acquiesced after initially rejecting Ukraine’s requests for weaponry such as Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and ATACMS.
There exists a broad consensus that neither side is prepared for official negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asserted his readiness for discussions, including last week when he remarked, “the ball is in their court,” referring to Ukraine. However, two former Russian officials who remain close to the Kremlin expressed skepticism that Putin would actually negotiate while Ukrainian forces occupy Kursk.
The prospect of widespread conflict in the Middle East has diverted focus from Ukraine. Western weariness regarding the war in Ukraine is tangible, “and increasingly growing,” remarked Finland’s foreign minister in a recent Financial Times article.
The president of the Czech Republic expressed last month that Ukraine must confront the reality of temporarily conceding territory to Russia. Numerous diplomats and analysts indicate that the most likely near-future scenario for the conflict is an arrangement that would temporarily halt fighting along a yet-to-be-determined boundary. However, Putin must be convinced that he cannot gain further territory for any ceasefire to hold.
The upcoming U.S. election, just days away, will significantly influence the future of the conflict, analysts affirm.
Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, have indicated their doubts regarding continued U.S. support for Ukraine. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has pledged to maintain Biden’s backing for Ukraine, though many experts suggest she may reassess the scope of aid the U.S. is willing to provide.
Additionally, Zelenskyy’s primary ambition remains to secure an invitation to NATO during the ongoing conflict. While certain NATO allies, including the Baltic states and Poland, appear receptive to this notion, and NATO has consistently assured that Ukraine will eventually join the alliance, both the United States and Germany oppose extending an invitation during wartime due to concerns that NATO could become embroiled in a conflict with nuclear-armed Russia.
Ukrainians may be hoping that Biden will take steps post-election to enhance his legacy concerning Ukraine — potentially by approving the use of long-range missiles or facilitating a quicker entry into NATO.
Among Ukrainians, the tendency to blame the West — something rare during the initial year of the war — is growing due to delays in military assistance and a sentiment that Ukraine’s allies are only supplying enough weaponry to avoid defeat. So far, Europe and the United States have committed around $220 billion in aid and military resources for Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany.
On the front lines, frustration towards the United States and its allies is palpable. A drone operator from the 57th Brigade in Ukraine, using the call sign Fregat, stated in an interview that he desired the current frontline to be stabilized since Ukrainian forces couldn’t overcome the Russians armed solely with shovels and machine guns. He attributed the lack of more precise weaponry to the Europeans and Americans.
A volunteer assisting with evacuations near Pokrovsk, an eastern town under threat from Russian forces, claimed that the West’s goal was simply to weaken Russia, rather than facilitating Ukraine’s victory.
“Before long, there may not be anyone left to utilize the weapons they provide us,” said the volunteer, Yevhen Tuzov, “because all our Western partners want is for us to keep fighting until the last Ukrainian.”
