OPINION: Zelensky’s Victory Plan: What’s in it and What’s Missing

Ukrainian President Zelensky has presented his five-point “Victory Plan” to the public. During a speech in the Ukrainian parliament, Zelensky outlined the Ukrainian government’s vision for what would be needed to secure a meaningful end to the Russo-Ukrainian War.

First and foremost, the plan calls for an immediate invitation of Ukraine into NATO. While there is no specific timeline or process attached to this proposal, it is apparent that Zelensky’s government has no interest in moving forward with any sort of post-war settlement that does not include meaningful, strong guarantees of security.

Point two requests that Ukraine be provided weapons capable of striking targets deep inside of Russia and that Kyiv is granted preemptive authorization to use them if need be.

Point three states that American and European troops must be deployed to Ukraine in order to prevent further aggression from Russia in the future.

Points two and three both contain secret provisions that are unavailable to the public but have been reportedly shared with the leadership of Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Point four requests that bilateral agreements are signed between Ukraine and its western allies on the topic of economic integration, with special emphasis being placed on the export of minerals and metals from Ukraine to the West.

The victory plan concludes with point five petitioning Ukraine’s allies to allow the Ukrainian military to partake in European security measures and share lessons learned from fighting the Russians.

Other Topics of Interest

Kyiv Says Russia Shot Dead Five Surrendered Soldiers

The regional prosecutor’s office stated that Russian soldiers captured them, forced them to leave the shelter unarmed, and lie on the ground before shooting them.

I have mixed feelings about the victory plan. To be clear, I support Ukrainian NATO membership, and I support Ukrainian integration into the economic and security structures of the transatlantic community.

I also believe that Ukraine can still achieve favorable conditions prior to beginning a negotiation process with Russia and that a major part of this includes having a theory of victory and a concrete vision of what “victory” looks like.

However, I feel that this plan reads more like a wish list for Ukraine’s partners rather than a document outlining how Ukraine will achieve victory. This would have been an excellent opportunity to specify what Ukraine will do and how it will do it in order to bring the war to a close.

A victory plan could specify what role Ukraine’s holdings in Kursk Oblast will play in the later stages of the conflict, how Kyiv plans to liberate its currently occupied territory, how Ukraine will possibly expand its domestic drone and munitions industry to regain momentum against the Russians, or what role unpopular policies like expanded mobilization will play in bringing the conflict to its conclusion.

According to recent reporting, there is an element of Ukraine’s victory plan that was absent from Zelensky’s presentation in parliament: the potential re-nuclearization of Ukraine. Zelensky has stated that Ukraine’s two options for securing a lasting peace are “nukes or NATO…and we want NATO”.

 Considering that the removal of nuclear weapons from Ukraine was a major priority of the Bush and Clinton administrations in the 1990s and the cornerstone of agreements like the Budapest Memorandum, the fact that Ukraine is considering possibly developing an indigenous nuclear weapon should be seen as a sign of how decades of arms control agreements have been undone due to of Putin’s invasion.

The world is more dangerous with more states armed with nuclear weapons - but if I can be frank, I can’t blame Ukraine for re-considering its previous policy of denuclearization. Ukraine’s surrender of nuclear weapons was achieved because the United States provided assurances for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

If neither NATO membership nor credible security guarantees are provided, it makes sense that Kyiv would signal a reconsideration of its previous denuclearization. That being said, nuclear proliferation is avoidable: Washington needs to better manage nuclear extortion (discouraging aspiring nuclear-capable states from considering nuclear weapons programs is the ultimate security guarantee) and in the Ukrainian context, provide the tools needed for Ukraine’s security and make meaningful progress towards Ukrainian NATO membership.

This article reprinted with the author’s permission from his blog Why It Matters. See the original here.

The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.