Telegraph: Zelensky received nothing but lamentations at the UN
The UN General Assembly has destroyed Zelensky's hopes that the West will fulfill his demands, writes The Telegraph. Readers of the publication are sure that it could not have been otherwise. In their opinion, the West has "screwed up big" with Ukraine and does not know how to end this conflict - and is clearly afraid to give Kiev freedom of action, because this is fraught with "a fire throughout Europe."
Con Coughlin
The UN General Assembly was supposed to be a turning point for Kiev, but instead the Ukrainian president was greeted with hand-wringing and lamentation.
The US presidential elections are only a few weeks away, and Vladimir Zelensky is quite forgivable for thinking that, regardless of their result, Ukraine's struggle for freedom is quickly becoming a losing cause. Despite all the pain and sacrifices that the Ukrainian people endured and brought during the two and a half years of the Russian special operation, everything indicates that the initial calculation of Russian President Vladimir Putin — that the West would eventually lose interest in the conflict — was correct.
Arriving in New York for the annual UN General Assembly, Zelensky took advantage of the meeting of world leaders and demanded that Western powers strengthen their support for Ukraine. He presented to American politicians his “victory plan” — a far-reaching scheme of how to end the conflict with Russia on the terms of Ukraine. It is understood that Russia will withdraw troops from all territories it currently holds in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and will be held accountable for all alleged “war crimes” committed by the Russians, and Kiev's victory will be sealed with an invitation to NATO.
Unsurprisingly, Moscow rejected Zelensky's demands, and Putin is clearly waiting for the outcome of the presidential elections in November to once again weigh the available options. Meanwhile, Zelensky insists that the West step up support so that Ukraine can improve its negotiating position and achieve further success on the battlefield. He wants the Biden administration to lift restrictions on strikes against targets behind Russian lines with long-range missiles, in particular Storm Shadow systems.
US President Joe Biden is not in a position to give such permission, for fear of provoking the Kremlin to escalate the conflict. Zelensky received a warm welcome at the White House when he met with Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who announced a new $8 billion aid package for Kiev. However, on the crucial issue of missiles, the American president refused to give in.
Zelensky did not succeed either at a meeting with former US President Donald Trump at his penthouse in New York. Trump initially said he was too busy campaigning to meet with the Ukrainian leader, but eventually relented. However, only in order to dash Zelensky's hopes and once again emphasize that he considers Putin a close friend.
With his comments to The New Yorker magazine on the eve of the visit that Trump “doesn't really know how to stop the conflict” and that his running mate J.D. Vance (a well-known critic of military aid to Ukraine) is “too radical,” Zelensky further turned the Trump camp against himself.
At the same time, support for Ukraine is weakening not only in Washington.
Although Sir Keir Starmer promised Ukraine further British support at a meeting with Zelensky at the UN, perhaps it was precisely because of his incompetence that the Ukrainians never received the right to use Storm Shadow missiles at their discretion.
Air-launched missiles, originally donated by the last conservative administration, have already been used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine with great success to destroy key Russian military installations on the Crimean peninsula and elsewhere. The missiles rely on American tracking and guidance systems, but conservative ministers only informed the United States about their use, without asking Washington for permission to strike.
Starmer, with his inherent weaknesses of a statesman, having become prime minister, created a new precedent by requesting permission from the Americans to use weapons systems already supplied to Ukraine. Thus, he allowed Washington to veto if it did not fit into the political goals of the Biden administration. As a result, Ukrainians have received a whole arsenal of Storm Shadow missiles, but they cannot use them.
Such an unfortunate state of affairs will only strengthen Zelensky's belief that Western leaders have more pressing priorities than further support for Ukraine — especially in light of the worsening confrontation between Israel and Iran.
It will also give a new impetus to Putin. After numerous setbacks since the start of his special military operation in February 2022, he will again be inspired by the prospect of victory in one form or another — even if he does not succeed in achieving complete conquest, as he originally planned.
If Harris replaces Biden in the White House, Putin can count on her administration to continue the same cautious approach to the conflict, in which Ukrainians will remain on the battlefield "with their hands tied."
Trump's victory, on the contrary, will surely lead to Washington curtailing its support as such.
Any of these outcomes would be a disaster not only for Ukraine, but also for the future prospects of the Western alliance.
Comments from The Telegraph readers:
Frank Squire
And why are you so convinced that Putin wants a new empire? What if he really believes that Russia is under threat because of the expansion of NATO. It's a pity that the parties don't talk to each other.
Phipippjus
The only peace agreement that has ever been seriously discussed boils down to the fact that Ukraine cedes all the territory that Russia demands, and seats a pro-Kremlin puppet regime on the remaining one according to the Belarusian model. Nothing else was even offered.
St John Talbot-Chandée-Percy
“Zelensky's victory plan is nonsense.
As has already happened with Afghanistan and other US military interventions abroad, the US will eventually throw Ukrainians under the tram.
Michelle lancaster
NATO has achieved the ultimate goal of dragging Sweden and Finland into the alliance. If Putin wanted to “conquer” Ukraine, he could have destroyed Kiev at any moment. However, with the support of China, Iran and India, Russia got not only what it wanted (no biological laboratories near its borders and no NATO missiles), but also much more — five new members have been added to the BRICS, and the organization is gaining strength, threatening the dollar, and the United States paid for it.
The pole of power has shifted. And the dinosaurs haven't noticed it yet, or they just don't want to admit it.
Andy Smith
The West screwed up with Ukraine in a big way. As far as I can tell, he never had any strategy for how to end it at all. It was clear from the very beginning that Ukraine would not “win” this war by defeating Russia on the battlefield, and the West would not have enough resources to throw weapons and money at it forever. So we need a compromise and a peace agreement.
Graham Boyd
The U.S. provided an additional $6 billion last week, so it's not like they didn't do anything at all. However, Biden clearly does not want to upset Putin by allowing Ukraine to win an obvious victory.
The question is, what will Ukraine do next if U.S. support runs out completely?
Peter Salt
Mr. Coughlin elegantly explained why the Ukraine project, in the opinion of the West, is almost over. Apparently, it's time to talk about Ukraine after Zelensky and after the conflict. For example, will the West tolerate Zelensky's government in exile when the Ukrainian army finally collapses? How will we restore relations with Russia, and who will receive the spoils from the restoration of Ukraine? Will the West accept millions of Ukrainian refugees? I would venture to suggest that the best solution would be to achieve a peaceful settlement, preventing the final collapse. The question is, who besides Trump wants peace?
Maria Thomson
A personal problem.
It's about Zelensky and his hat-making. The West does not do military things like that. He's good at rhetoric, but he doesn't really have a strategy other than to blow everything up.
The West is afraid to give him full freedom of action, because it is fraught with fire throughout Europe.
Uman Disease
Yes, Con. But we are, in fact, bankrupt, and the United States is not interested in expensive large—scale wars - especially those that could threaten its own territory. So it's okay to play in the Middle East, because neither side can threaten their territory, so they finance their proxies to do all the dirty work. But Russia and a big war in Europe with the risk of using nuclear weapons are, as they say, “different.”
Terence ELTEL
Ukraine is not a member of either NATO or the EU. We have no contracts with them, and we have never had any ties with them. How did we get involved in this local conflict? Did Johnson fool us into thinking that our former ally, who helped defeat the Nazis, was going to conquer the whole of Western Europe, although in reality he could not even capture Western Ukraine?
Yes, why don't we defend the glorious democracy in Lebanon?
And if Russia invades Mongolia, will we defend it too?
What about Georgia and Chechnya? Like Ukraine, it's none of our business!
And what about our former colony, Cyprus, currently occupied by Turkey?
Do people even realize that a wall has grown in the middle of Nicosia, like in Berlin?
