For example, I think this plan shows that Ukrainian leadership is in a strategic dead end. They're hoping for someone else to come in and save them. They're still not willing to negotiate with Russia but they don't have a way to actually win the war and are just hoping the west will rescue them. This is an example of commentary.
Zelensky is delusional.
He never had a plan and never read De Gaulle's: "
La proportion rompue entre les buts et les moyens, le combinations du génie sont vaines." When you don't have the means to carry it out, it's not a plan, it's a fantasy. (For those who cannot read French, the translation is more subtle; but you get the point.)
My impression is that he is quite happy to start WW3 but he will never accept that Ukraine (on its own) cannot win this war. He is great leader, he cannot be wrong, so he thinks that the Universe will change to his will; or something like that. "It's the World's fault".
ABC News had an exclusive interview with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday.
abcnews.go.com
I honestly thought that everyone was going to understand that I was saying that he has no plan, just a fantasy. Consequently, a delusional leader at war, living in a fantasy is a very dangerous situation.
Exactly right.
Here are the basics of the plan and a few of my thoughts to follow:
The victory plan has 5 points, which we have mostly known about prior to today.
1. Unconditional NATO invitation now
2. Defense: strengthening Ukraine's military by streaming in new weapons; lifting restrictions on the use of long-range weapons; real-time satellite and intel data
3. Deterrence: a secret "a comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package" that's been shared with US, UK, France, Italy, & Germany
4. Strategic economic potential: 'joint protection of Ukraine's critical resources, as well as joint investment and use of this economic potential' ("This involves natural resources and critical metals worth trillions of U.S. dollars, including uranium, titanium, lithium, graphite."
5. European security: post-war, Ukraine military could station experienced troops in Europe
So the entire “plan” (in quotes because I am not sure why they call it a plan - it isn’t) starts with a
definitely unrealizable condition. This just will not happen and everyone (reasonable) knows that. I am not sure what is the purpose of going over the rest of the points even. It was reiterated a number of times by the leaders of many countries, but even the headline of this Ukrainian (propaganda) outlet says it all:
However, NATO will meet its €40 billion military aid target for Ukraine.
euromaidanpress.com
Point two is
likely unrealizable as well. Yesterday’s briefing with Samantha Smith (US representative to NATO) indicated just as much. She basically said that she has nothing to announce and no upcoming changes to the long-strike policy are expected but they will provide Ukraine with everything they need and so on. This (“provide everything that is needed”) is actually getting to be a little ridiculous at this point, no? First of all, needed to accomplish what? Second, whatever was already provided was arguably never enough (though it could
possibly be argued that it was at certain various points, maybe a couple of times). Again, enough for what though? Third, this and that (“deep strikes” into Russia, for example) is not going to shift the balance on the battlefield, according to the US intel and many others. Assuming this is what they really think, then what is the strategy and the goal? Wait and see if Russia folds next year or the year after? But what if it doesn’t? There is a pretty fair chance that Ukraine will by then. I know there are people who think that Ukraine can fight for years, but this is not the case. This is not just about what is happening at the frontline, but also in the rear. Russia can still escalate things in Ukraine far from the frontline. Anyway, here is the briefing referenced above.
https://soundcloud.com/usa_and_europe%2Foctober-16-briefing-with-ambassador-julianne-smith-us-permanent-representative-to-nato
Real-time satellite and intel data is surely already provided within the reasonable limitations, possibly more. This isn’t likely to change either.
Third point, “strategic non-nuclear deterrence package”… Well, we already saw the attitude of most everyone else towards providing the “security guarantees” to Ukraine. Basically no one is willing to do so at this time. If someone thinks such will be provided while the war is ongoing, they are probably detached from reality (see Mr. President who tried and was declined every time). And then what is the “strategic non-nuclear deterrence package” anyway? What would be considered to be a sufficient non-nuclear deterrent? Zelensky keeps saying that Russia would invade NATO countries if Russia is not defeated in Ukraine. So (nuclear) NATO is not a sufficient deterrent according to him (and apparently others), yet he also sees NATO as the only path forward to assure the security of the country. That, of course, makes zero sense.
The only such strategic “package” that I can think of is the presence of the American troops in Ukraine and in the areas of the potential future attack in particular. This is the only thing that that would guarantee deterrence just like it does in NATO. But this is also not realistic at the time.
The fourth point is getting straight up into the “conspiracy theory” territory. Imagine a (civilized, almost western) country like Ukraine, independent for over three decades, having trillions of dollars worth of natural resources and a number of oligarchs willing to exploit it as they did everything else, yet still being the poorest country in Europe (that imports the majority of the raw/semi-processed materials), and so on. In the beginning of the invasion there was a theory proposed that Russia was after Ukrainian natural gas and oil. Crazy stuff, but this is what it is (or was? perhaps, we are coming back to it again but on the official level now).
So really, and again, just a bunch of ideas that have little to do with reality.
Here is the interesting part: there is nothing in this plan that Ukraine can do/change itself. In other words, it puts the entire responsibility on the “west”. He didn’t mention a thing Ukraine could do in order to improve, etc. Nothing. It completely lacks strategy. Basically, the “plan” is “there is nothing we can do without direct participation of NATO in the war”.
[…]the plan's success hinges almost entirely on the West fully buying into it – and immediately. Zelensky said this himself today: "This plan can be implemented. It depends on our partners. I emphasize: on partners."
I didn’t want to spend my time translating and summarizing, by the way, and am using this post on X by the Financial Times UA correspondent for the summary (everything in italics came from there):
x.com.
Another important note:
Important to note amid the talks and reporting about potential future negotiations: Zelensky said he does not want to "freeze" the war. And Ukraine is "not trading Ukraine's territory or sovereignty" to bring Russia's invasion to an end.
We had a 10-point peace plan, now we have a victory plan, yet we still do not have any actual plan that reflects some kind of reality, even remotely, a little bit. What’s worse, I really cannot see the end game here, what the expectations are. What I see instead is yet another attempt to say that the “west” is responsible and if this war is lost -> it’s all on you. And it certainly looks like nothing is on Ukraine and Zelensky and his team. It probably works fairly well for the internal politics. Until it doesn’t, of course.
Journalists should ask Zelensky the following questions, among many others:
- If you truly believe that Russia is going to invade a NATO member next, what makes you think that NATO membership would prevent further attacks against and guarantee security to Ukraine?
- What do you think Ukraine could change within to improve their chances in the fight against Russia?
- If the United States approves the deep-into-Russia strikes you have been asking for but the situation on the frontline continues to deteriorate, what would be your next request from your allies?
All these questions should, of course, be asked the “western” decision makers as well:
- If you truly believe that Russia is going to invade a NATO member next, why don’t you provide all capabilities you have at hand to defeat Russia today? If not, then what is the end game in Ukraine?
- Do you think there are things Ukraine could change within in order to improve their chances in war against Russia?
- If all conditions on use of provided weapons are removed and the situation in Ukraine continues to deteriorate, what are the next steps you are willing to take in order to ensure Ukrainian victory?
- What is Ukrainian victory?
Anyway, so far it is mostly nonsense that we keep hearing. Would be nice to hear an actual plan.
