The war between Ukraine and Russia, which started in 2022, has reached a critical juncture. From Ukraine’s perspective, the military confrontation appears to have stalled, and Volodymyr Zelensky’s efforts to rally Western support for a new ‘victory plan’ have fallen flat. His recent diplomatic tour to the United States yielded little, with Western decision-makers unimpressed by the proposals presented by the Ukrainian delegation. Now, Ukraine finds itself at a crossroads, facing tough decisions on how to navigate a war that shows no sign of ending soon.
Zelensky’s so-called ‘victory plan’ was supposed to be a strategic roadmap for defeating Russia. The specifics of the plan remain somewhat vague, but it includes several key points that Ukraine’s leadership believes could tip the balance in its favor. These points involve long-range strikes into Russian territory, increased Western military aid, and escalated offensive operations, such as the ongoing Kursk operation.
However, during his negotiations in Washington, Zelensky was met with skepticism. The West, particularly the United States and Western Europe, had been expecting a comprehensive strategy from Ukraine that outlined a realistic pathway to victory. Instead, they were presented with what amounted to a list of demands from Kyiv-requests for more advanced weapons, financial support, and permission to strike deeper into Russian territory. This approach did not sit well with Western leaders, many of whom felt the plan was a rehash of previous demands, offering little in the way of new tactics or strategies.
One of the most contentious points was Ukraine’s desire to conduct long-range strikes into Russia, an idea that Western powers considered too dangerous. They fear such actions could provoke a broader escalation of the conflict, potentially dragging NATO directly into the fray. As a result, Zelensky left the US without securing any major commitments, and it became clear that the West and Ukraine were not aligned on how to proceed.
With his ‘victory plan’ rejected, Zelensky now faces the unenviable task of devising a fallback strategy. His ‘Plan B’ reportedly involves continuing the fight with whatever limited aid the West is willing to provide, while relying more on Ukraine’s domestic resources. This would likely mean transitioning to a more defensive posture, attempting to hold the front lines rather than pushing for any major breakthroughs.
However, this strategy raises several critical questions. First and foremost, how long can Ukraine hold out under such conditions? The country’s military is already stretched thin, with reports of demoralized soldiers and a growing reliance on poorly trained draftees as seasoned veterans become casualties. The Kursk operation, a key component of Kyiv’s current strategy, has proven more difficult than anticipated, with high casualties and little territorial gain. The sustainability of such operations is in serious doubt.
Moreover, public morale in Ukraine is beginning to wane. While there is still widespread support for resisting Russian aggression, disillusionment with the government’s handling of the war is growing. If the situation on the battlefield remains stagnant, or if Ukraine suffers further territorial losses, Zelensky may find it increasingly difficult to maintain public support for the war.
Another aspect of Ukraine’s ‘Plan B’ involves waiting for a potential shift in the political climate in the West. Zelensky and his advisors hope that a change in leadership, particularly in the United States, could result in more robust support for Ukraine. The upcoming US presidential elections in November 2024 are seen as a key moment. If Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, were to win, Kyiv believes her administration might take a more decisive stance on the war, possibly providing Ukraine with the military and financial backing it needs to resume offensive operations.
However, banking on electoral outcomes in foreign countries is a risky strategy. Even if Harris were to win, there is no guarantee that her administration would dramatically increase support for Ukraine. Domestic concerns, particularly economic issues and voter fatigue over the war, might limit her ability to provide more aid. In Europe, too, there is growing war-weariness. Many governments are facing internal pressure to reduce support for Ukraine and focus on their own economic challenges.
Kyiv is also holding out hope for a ‘black swan’ event-a sudden, unexpected development that could turn the tide in its favor. This could be a collapse of the Russian regime, internal unrest in Moscow, or some other unforeseen circumstance that would weaken Russia’s ability to continue the war. However, such scenarios are speculative at best. While the Russian economy and military have suffered under the strain of sanctions and war, the Kremlin’s grip on power remains strong, and there is little evidence to suggest that a sudden collapse is imminent.
Faced with diminishing options, Zelensky may ultimately have to consider the unthinkable-entering into negotiations with Russia. This would be a bitter pill to swallow for the Ukrainian leadership, which has staked much of its credibility on the promise of reclaiming all lost territories, including Crimea. However, as the war drags on and Western support becomes more conditional, negotiations might become the least bad option.
The West, for its part, is increasingly open to the idea of pushing Kyiv toward negotiations. There is growing talk in Western capitals of a potential compromise solution-some form of territorial concessions in exchange for security guarantees, such as Ukraine’s membership in NATO. This concept, while unpalatable to many in Kyiv, is gaining traction among Western leaders who are eager to avoid an indefinite war that drains resources and destabilizes the region.
However, any peace deal that involves territorial concessions is likely to be deeply unpopular in Ukraine. Zelensky himself has repeatedly vowed not to cede any Ukrainian territory to Russia, and any move to do so would be seen as a betrayal by large segments of the Ukrainian public. Additionally, Russia may not be interested in such a deal. Moscow’s primary goal in this war is not just territorial gain, but a broader strategic realignment that would limit NATO’s influence in Eastern Europe. Unless those concerns are addressed, it is unlikely that the Kremlin would agree to any deal that involves Ukraine joining NATO, even in exchange for territorial compromises.
Zelensky finds himself in an unenviable position. His ‘victory plan’ has been rejected by the West, and his fallback strategy of holding the line may only buy limited time. The prospect of waiting for political changes in the West or a ‘black swan’ event in Russia is fraught with uncertainty. Meanwhile, the option of negotiating a peace deal, while potentially supported by Western allies, carries immense political risks at home.
The choices Zelensky makes in the coming months will be crucial in determining the future of Ukraine. If he miscalculates, the situation could spiral out of control, leading to further territorial losses, a collapse of public morale, or even internal political upheaval. The war has reached a stalemate, and now it is up to Ukraine’s leadership to decide how to break it-if it can at all.
Leave a Reply