Zelensky in Washington: will it be possible to save the Victory Plan after diplomatic scandals
“Anyone who has even once looked into the glassy eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think twice before starting a war” – the words of Otto von Bismarck sound like a stern warning. But the war has not only not started, it has been going on for the third year already, and its bloody vortex is increasingly dragging Ukrainians with it. However, despite calls to find a way out as soon as possible, neither peace plans nor diplomatic efforts have so far yielded results.
Instead of the expected progress, recent events testify to the aggravation of political tension both within Ukraine and on the international arena. Volodymyr Zelenskyi’s plan, which was supposed to be a clear roadmap for ending the war, faced comprehensive criticism. And his visit to the USA, instead of strengthening support, became a source of new disputes, accusations of interference in the election process and strained relations with potential allies.
Zelensky’s victory plan: maximalism without a strategy
During a recent meeting with US President Joe Biden, Volodymyr Zelensky presented his Plan for defeating Russia. However, this document caused a mixed reaction in the administration of the White House. The Wall Street Journal points out that for the American side, the Ukrainian proposal looks more like another request for weapons than a clear strategy for overcoming the war.
Volodymyr Zelensky skillfully created an atmosphere of mystery around his plan, which has not yet been presented to Ukrainians and the wider world community. However, it seems that this document will not become a decisive factor in the decision-making of the Western allies, at least until the end of the presidential elections in the USA. Zelensky emphasizes that his plan has a clear time frame and can be implemented between October and December 2024. It consists of four main parts: military aid to Ukraine, economic measures, diplomatic pressure on the aggressor and “political coercion of Russia.” In addition, the plan also contains a clause that covers the long-term perspective. Each of these aspects is related to security guarantees for Ukraine, defining its role in the international arena, as well as military and economic support from partners. The document provides a detailed list of necessary military equipment and weapons, as well as permission to use long-range missiles for strikes on the territory of Russia. This includes attacks deep into Russian territory, which are still prohibited.
At the same time, Ukraine dissuades allies and other countries from supporting China’s peace plan, as Beijing is trying to “prevent Russia’s defeat” in the war, only freezes the conflict and contains conditions that are favorable to Moscow. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Volodymyr Zelensky sharply condemned China’s role in Russia’s war against Ukraine, which may indicate a change in Kyiv’s previously cautious stance toward Beijing. Zelenskyi also called the “peace initiatives” of China and Brazil “harmful” and those that do not contribute to the resolution of the conflict.
Despite the statement of the leadership of Ukraine that the plan is “very specific and clear”, in Washington it is perceived as a “repackaged request” for more weapons. The central point of the plan – permission to strike with Ukrainian weapons on Russian territory – generally met with strong opposition from Joe Biden, who is categorically against expanding the scope of the conflict. For the United States and Europe, the key is to determine exactly how Ukraine plans to use new resources to achieve victory. Clear plans are not just a list of requested types of weapons, but a strategy that includes both military and political, economic and diplomatic steps. However, the strategies were not seen in the plan. According to foreign partners who had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with it, Zelensky’s plan looks more like a diplomatic game designed to preserve the status quo and retain support from Biden until the end of his presidential term, rather than a thorough justification and analysis. In fact, many foreign high-ranking officials have already stated that Zelenskyi’s plan looks like a “wish list” and a “plan without a plan” and not a comprehensive strategy for victory.
The US presidential election is a little more than a month away, and the administration is trying to avoid steps that could undermine Joe Biden’s support or strengthen the positions of his opponents. In particular, Donald Trump, who has repeatedly declared his readiness for negotiations with Russia. Ukraine risks being left with “a lot of plans” and “little action” if Biden or his successor decide to change their strategy in terms of supporting Kyiv. It is important for the current US president to demonstrate to voters that every dollar spent on aid to Ukraine is an investment in global security, not in an endless conflict with no visible end. In turn, Zelensky must prove that lifting restrictions on the use of long-range missiles and supplying more weapons is not just a way to push Russia out of the occupied territories, but a strategic element that will lead to drastic changes on the battlefield.
It should be noted that our country is in a difficult situation: on the one hand, it needs maximum support right now, and on the other hand, it cannot ignore the risks associated with future political changes in Washington. The question is whether Zelensky will be able to present a plan that will be accepted in the West not just as a set of demands, but as a coherent strategy for ending the war and building a new Ukraine. Western and American politicians believe that Zelensky’s maximalism and bold proposals do not correspond to political realities. This plan clearly states the needs of the Ukrainian army in weapons and equipment, as well as the requirements for permission from Western countries to use long-range weapons systems against targets in Russia. The US and its European partners are ready to support Ukraine, but they are not interested in putting their own security at stake.
Zelenskyi has repeatedly declared his readiness to negotiate with Russia on his own terms. However, the demand to include Ukraine in NATO and attacks on the territory of the Russian Federation are unlikely to induce Moscow to make concessions. Such steps, on the contrary, can push the Kremlin to a tougher position and an attempt to freeze the conflict on Russia’s terms. Biden, in turn, is trying to maintain a balance: support for Ukraine should be sufficient to prevent it from losing, but not so great as to cause a new round of escalation. This is a complex game in which every move must be calculated, not based on emotions and hopes. In this context, Zelenskyi’s “victory plan” looks more like a demand and an attempt to seize the moment and get as many resources and support as possible from the Biden administration before the political landscape in Washington undergoes a change. However, without concrete answers to the questions of how exactly these resources will change the situation on the battlefield and why the United States should take the risk of escalating the conflict, this document risks being ignored. In addition, it is worth remembering that even if Biden supports Ukraine now, this does not guarantee further help after the election. Zelensky will have to build relations with both potential President Trump and Harris. And in this case, what will be important will not be declarations, but real steps that will be able to convince the new administration that Ukraine is a reliable partner and not a risk to global security.
Zelensky’s visit to the USA
Despite the obvious need to avoid an escalation of the political situation in the midst of a war, the events of recent days suggest otherwise. Volodymyr Zelenskyi’s visit to a military plant in Pennsylvania not only attracted the attention of the American media, but also caused outrage among a number of politicians. In particular, he and the Ambassador of Ukraine to the USA, Oksana Markarova, were accused of trying to interfere in the election process. This visit took place against the background of criticism from supporters of Donald Trump, who believe that the Ukrainian president openly supports the administration of Joe Biden. One of the senators closest to Trump, Eric Schmitt, expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that a foreign leader appeared in the United States during the election campaign. Schmitt stressed that interference in elections is unacceptable and violates diplomatic norms.
The scandal took a new turn when Donald Trump refused to meet with Zelensky. During his speech in New York, he publicly called the Ukrainian president “the best salesman in history” and emphasized that the United States should not provide multibillion-dollar aid to Ukraine, which, according to him, refuses to conclude a peace agreement with Russia. Trump sharply stated: “Ukraine has been destroyed, entire cities have disappeared.” Millions of people died. And we continue to give billions of dollars to a person who refuses to make a deal.”
Such statements could be considered part of pre-election rhetoric, were it not for their unprecedented nature in contemporary American political realities. It’s hard to imagine such comments from influential American politicians even a few months ago, but now it’s the new norm. The position of Trump and his team reflects a general increase in skepticism about further support for Ukraine, especially in the context of the election campaign.
Accusations against Zelensky and Markarova of meddling in US domestic politics indicate that relations between the two countries are becoming increasingly strained. In this context, one cannot fail to mention the influential Ukrainian lobby in Washington, which actively supports the democratic administration of Biden. Such accusations of “supporting one of the parties” play into the hands of Republicans, in particular Trump, who is trying to discredit aid to Ukraine, presenting it as a waste of American taxpayers’ money. This incident raises concerns about the future of Ukrainian-American relations if the Republicans return to power. Many in Ukraine are concerned about a possible reduction or even termination of military and financial aid, which could significantly affect the course of the war and the country’s post-war recovery.
So, Volodymyr Zelensky is trying to win the support of American leaders even before the elections, but his actions are currently drawing more criticism than approval. This is the first time since the beginning of the full-scale war that the Ukrainian leadership felt such open hostility from US politicians. Attempts to maneuver in Washington’s political waters can lead to unpredictable consequences – instead of increasing support, Ukraine risks alienating key allies. Incorrect political maneuvers and diplomatic mistakes can cost our country dearly, jeopardizing not only current cooperation, but also future assistance.
Failure to build an effective peace plan and retain the support of foreign partners could make the war last longer and the cost of ending it even greater. Then Bismarck’s words about her tragedy will sound not as a warning, but as a bitter reminder of how important it is to act deliberately in order to avoid even greater casualties and destruction.
