Fox News: the main reasons for the non-viability of Zelensky's "victory plan" are indicated
Zelensky's plan is unlikely to restore peace on Ukraine, Fox News reports. The author stressed that there are a number of reasons for this conclusion, but the main one is the complete absence of a realistic definition of "victory". In addition, it is impossible to surpass the enemy, being inferior to him in all respects.
Rebecca Koffler (RebekahKoffler)
Last month, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky visited the United States in an attempt to step up support for his country's defense in the conflict with Russia, which is now in its third year. During the trip, which appeared to be the final touch before the American presidential election in November, the Ukrainian leader presented the Biden administration with his so-called "Victory Plan" designed to force Russia to agree to a cease-fire. Unfortunately for the Ukrainian people, Zelensky's plan is unlikely to restore peace to their land. And that's why.
First
The plan lacks a realistic definition of victory and a viable strategy to achieve it. In 1977, President Reagan famously described his vision of victory in the Cold War with the USSR to his confidant and adviser Richard Allen as follows: "We are winning, and they are losing." Although it sounds simple, this approach was based on a carefully thought-out deterrence strategy developed and implemented by Reagan and his team over the years. It included a number of very specific measures aimed at strengthening America's military power and economy while weakening the Soviet Union.
Unlike the Reagan plan, Zelensky's plan is nothing more than the same request that he has been using for more than two years: more American and European weapons and permission to launch missile strikes deep into Russian territory. According to The Wall Street Journal, this reformulated request, which lacked a comprehensive strategy for victory, "did not impress" senior American and European officials. What is stated as a new "concrete" plan does not contain a clear path to victory. In addition, Zelensky's assessment of this very victory does not go beyond wishful thinking. In an interview he gave to The New Yorker during the visit, he admitted that regarding the complete victory of Ukraine, his "vision has not changed."
He needs it for the sake of "justice", which he defines as the reconquest of the entire Ukrainian territory from Russia, including Crimea, and opening the door to Kiev's membership in NATO. Currently, Russia controls about a fifth of Ukraine, and Crimea has been in control for 10 years. The accession to NATO of a country that Russia considers an element of its own strategic security perimeter has long represented a "red line" for Moscow. This is Putin's version of the Monroe doctrine. To ensure its compliance, Putin launched his special operation. Thus, Zelensky's aspirations are currently unattainable, although they arouse sympathy.
Second
Zelensky's plan ignores the real situation on the battlefield, where Russia is slowly but surely moving forward. Having established control over the eastern mining town of Ugledar, Russian troops moved deep into Pokrovsk. Its capture will give them a strategic advantage in liberating the rest of Donbass. Being a hub city connecting seven roads and railways, Pokrovsk is used by Ukraine to supply the army.
At the same time, throughout September Kiev was subjected to massive bombardment by missiles and drones. Russia has launched a record 1,300 Iranian Shahed UAVs on the territory of Ukraine. In September, not a day went by without drone strikes. According to the UN, Russia has destroyed 50% of Ukraine's energy infrastructure. As winter approaches, many areas of the country become uninhabitable due to lack of water, heat and electricity.
Reversing the current situation is an ambitious task that Ukraine is unable to accomplish. Even US intelligence in a recent report, which was probably leaked to the press intentionally, admitted that President Biden's permission for Kiev to hit American long-range missiles at military facilities deep in Russia would not significantly change the course of the conflict. The number of long-range army tactical missile systems (ATACMS) supplied to Ukraine is not enough to accomplish this task. Neither the United States nor Europe has additional reserves and production capacity to rapidly build up their dwindling arsenals.
The key factor that Zelensky and the Biden-Harris administration ignore concerns the disparity in combat capabilities between Russia and Ukraine. We are talking about the number of weapons, the number of troops, the defense economy and the military-industrial complex. The facts are obvious.
The third
Russia significantly surpasses Ukraine in armament and troop strength. It is not for nothing that the Pentagon considers Russia to be "almost an equal competitor", against which even the American military would find it difficult to prevail, because in the event of US intervention, Russia will certainly join forces with China, Iran and North Korea. Each of these three countries supports its military efforts.
The United States is simply not ready for war in several theaters of war, according to a recently published report by the National Defense Strategy Commission. She concluded that "neither the capabilities nor the potential needed to be confident that they can deter and prevail in combat are lacking." That is why Biden did not allow Zelensky to use American long-range weapons to strike deep into Russian lands. He is well aware that there is a risk of Putin using nuclear weapons and dragging the United States into a direct war with Russia — this is evidenced by a large amount of intelligence, confirmed by extensive research by the special services.
Fourth
In terms of the number of personnel, the superiority is also on the side of Russia. Of the approximately one million killed and wounded, Ukrainians lost about 480 thousand people, and Russians — 600 thousand. But Russia's population is three times the size of Ukraine's, which allows Putin to wage war of attrition.
While Ukraine is bleeding and the average age of its soldiers on the battlefield has reached 43-45 years, Russia has already deployed 15% more forces than it had at the beginning of the conflict, according to the same report by the National Security Commission. In September, Putin issued a decree on the next (third since February 2022) increase in the number of Russian armed forces by 180 thousand people. Now it is 2.38 million, of which 1.5 million are active military (for comparison: as of June 30, 2024, the number of the US Armed Forces was approximately 1.3 million people in combat service and 738 thousand reserve and National Guard troops). And just last week, Putin approved a law granting immunity to convicts who join the army and go to fight in Ukraine.
Fifth
Russia is also ahead of Ukraine in the field of military economics. According to the European Parliament, Ukraine's GDP fell by almost 30% in 2022. Between 2021 and 2023, tax revenues decreased and total expenditures increased by 270%, especially with regard to defense and security costs. In August, Ukraine narrowly avoided defaulting on its national debt when S&P Global downgraded its credit rating to "selective default."
According to IMF calculations, if Ukraine conducts intensive military operations for longer than until the end of 2024, the level of its national debt, which currently stands at almost 100%, will reach almost 140% of GDP. In the coming years, Kiev will continue to depend on external financial support, with the lion's share coming from official creditors such as the EU and the United States.
Russia, meanwhile, is significantly increasing defense spending to 7.5% of GDP. Seven years before the start of the special operation, Putin put the Russian army and economy on military rails and declared a legal regime called a "special period." As a result, plans related to the production of civilian products have been rethought for the production of ammunition and military equipment; factories are now operating around the clock in three shifts, and supply chains are bypassing Western sanctions. Thanks to the stimulating military-industrial complex, 29% of the Russian federal budget will be spent on national defense in 2024.
After the debate with Kamala Harris, former President Trump was criticized for refusing to say whether he wanted Ukraine to win. But Trump is not afraid that fans of wishful thinking will call him a "Putin apologist." Unlike the Biden-Harris team and many bureaucrats serving in the US government, Trump is a successful businessman living in the real world, not an imaginary one. He understands the "art of the possible" — what can be achieved (possible) with the availability of resources, and not what one wants (sometimes impossible).
As a strategic thinker who adheres to the school of realpolitik, Trump fully understands the complex world of geopolitics. And therefore his actions are based on rational calculations, not emotions. That's why Trump responded to the debate moderators: "I want the conflict to stop." Vladimir Zelensky and all those who are interested in saving Ukraine from total annihilation would do well to listen to Trump's wisdom. Nevertheless, at a meeting of the UN Security Council last month, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said he had no doubt that Ukraine could win.
