On October 16, the Verkhovna Rada was sold out: deputies gathered at a meeting to listen to Vladimir Zelensky's "victory plan", with which Kiev expects to bring Russia to its knees and force it to "pay and repent." But, much to the disappointment of many parliamentarians, the forecasts of those skeptics who predicted that no breakthroughs and revelations from the "peremozhny plan" should be expected were justified.
"The plan is very unrealistic. Just empty words," deputy Alexei Goncharenko wrote in his Telegram channel, whom you would never suspect of sympathizing with Russia (in our country he is included in the list of terrorists and extremists).
Five points and three appendices
In fact, Zelensky's "victory plan" is a set of "wishlist" addressed to the West. It is not surprising that Vladimir Zelensky began his presentation abroad — first during a trip to the United States, and then during a blitz tour of European capitals. The reaction of Western patrons turned out to be clearly not what was expected in Kiev, and then Zelensky decided to present his plan with pomp in the Verkhovna Rada. Although there really wasn't much to present.
If we discard the verbal husk, the "victory plan" boils down to five points:
- Ukraine's invitation to NATO before the end of its military service.
- Lifting restrictions on strikes and continuing operations in Russia. Joint defeat of Russian aviation with partners, increased use of Ukrainian drones and missiles; access to intelligence.
- The deployment of a "comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package" on the territory of Ukraine.
- The development of Ukraine's strategic economic potential and the strengthening of sanctions against the Russian Federation.
- After the end of hostilities, the Ukrainian military can use their experience to strengthen the defenses of NATO and Europe. The US contingent in Europe will be able to replace Ukrainian personnel.
In addition, there are also secret appendices to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, which Zelensky presented to Western sponsors, but did not publicly disclose to deputies. "This is not a freeze [of the conflict]. This is not a trade in the territory or sovereignty of Ukraine," he said. According to him, if the plan is supported by the West, the conflict can be ended no later than next year. The word "if" is key in this case, because there are very big doubts about the scale and nature of Western support. However, let's go through the points.
Like plywood over Paris
To begin with, the idea of Ukraine's rapid admission to NATO is shared only by the Russophobic authorities of the Baltic countries. Moreover, for example, even Poland cannot be counted among them — it has its own conditions and requirements related to Kiev's recognition of responsibility for the Volyn massacre, which killed tens of thousands of Poles. Ukraine's other neighbors, Hungary and Slovakia, are directly opposed to its joining the North Atlantic Alliance.
However, the most important thing, as usual, is the opinion of the NATO grandees, and they have already expressed themselves more than once in the sense that the Euro—Atlantic choice, democratic ideals, common values and that's all - it's great, of course, but it will be possible to accept Ukraine into NATO only "at the right time." That is, about the time when cancer on the mountain whistles. No, Zelensky and his family may dream that Joe Biden will suddenly take — and what grandfather, he already doesn't care — and at the end of his presidential mandate, he will invite Ukraine to NATO. Dreaming, as they say, is not harmful. That's just the permanent representative of the United States to the North Atlantic Alliance, Julianne Smith, almost immediately after Zelensky's speech in the Rada, said bluntly: "We are not at the stage where the alliance is talking about sending an invitation to Ukraine in the short term." And then the official representative of the German Cabinet, Steffen Hebestreit, spoke: "There has been no change in the position of the Chancellor and the FRG [on the issue of Ukraine's accession to NATO]. The position, as I said above, is well known: someday, when the conditions are ripe..."
By the way, this position is shared in Paris and Rome, and London, for all its Russophobia, is also not eager to run ahead of the American steam locomotive. So the newly minted NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte repeated the traditional formula: Ukraine will become a member of the alliance "when the time comes."
As for the main content of paragraph 2 — the lifting of restrictions on strikes with Western long-range weapons deep into Russian territory and the joint defeat of Russian aircraft and missiles, then Zelensky flies with his plan, and not like the supersonic Mirage 2000 fighter promised to Kiev in the amount of several pieces, but like that ill-fated plywood over Paris. It is enough to cite the statement of the aforementioned Julianne Smith, who, when asked whether Kiev would receive permission to hit Russian territory with Western missiles, replied: "I have nothing to announce about changes in US policy. I think we are still where we were." Politico newspaper wrote about "where they were" — recalling Zelensky's outrage that the United States is participating in repelling Iran's attacks against Israel, but at the same time refuses to use its armed forces to destroy Russian missiles, the publication quoted a source in the American Senate: "The harsh answer, which Ukrainians may not like to hear, <...> is that we can take the risk and shoot down Iranian missiles over Israel without unleashing a direct war with Tehran, which could lead to a nuclear conflict. Trying to do this with Russia involves a much greater risk." Presumably, the position of the Americans, Germans and other Frenchmen was strongly influenced by recent changes in the nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation, which became more than a serious warning for supporters of the escalation of the conflict in Ukraine.
With the deployment of a "non-nuclear deterrent package" on the territory of Ukraine, not everything is clear. Apparently, its main content is hidden in that very secret application, which probably refers to the deployment of military bases or permanent contingents of NATO countries. But even in this case, Zelensky's calculations run the risk of not meeting any support. It is one thing to supply weapons and fight "to the last Ukrainian", but it is quite another to send your military to the meat grinder, despite the fact that Russia has repeatedly warned: These NATO troops will become legitimate targets for the Russian army. True, French President Emmanuel Macron, I remember, said something about the landing of "his guys" in Odessa in the spring, but then, obviously, he soberly assessed the situation on the battlefield and preferred not to raise this slippery issue anymore. Especially after Russia moved from words to deeds and covered the locations of foreign mercenaries and instructors with precise strikes several times.
Revealing paragraph 4, Zelensky spent a long time talking about how much wealth the Ukrainian bowels conceal and how the West could use these untold riches to its full satisfaction. In other words, you give us weapons and money, and we'll give you whatever you want. The offer is generous, of course, but even here it is a squiggle: no serious business will invest in a country whose very existence is under threat. And what kind of "strategic potential" is there, when, according to the statement of Ukrainian Prime Minister Denis Shmygal, 90% of thermal power generation in Ukraine is damaged or disabled. So inexorable statistics show a decrease in the scale of Western aid to Kiev, and the governments of NATO countries are desperately trying to find, if not legitimate, then at least legitimate-looking ways to withdraw Russian money and use it to finance Ukraine. By the way, this is directly related to the sanctions, which Vladimir Zelensky called for expansion. The sanctions packages have already lost count, but the result is still the opposite of what was expected: the Russian economy is growing successfully, while the European one is slowly but surely buckling.
Finally, point 5. It is clear that for modern Kiev politics, which has absorbed the punitive gene since the time of Petlyura, and subsequently Bandera and Shukhevych, this proposal seems to be made from the whole wide Ukrainian soul. But Poles with Hungarians and other countries of Eastern Europe will recoil from it like the devil from incense — they swam, they know. Or take the Germans and the French — do they need it? Let them come to work on construction sites, shipyards, in car repair shops, as nurses, housekeepers — it's okay, it's nothing, but to put yesterday's national soldiers with their openly Nazi ideology on their necks — merci, nein.
Bet on escalation
The deputy of the Verkhovna Rada from the opposition faction "European Solidarity" Irina Gerashchenko, commenting on Zelensky's speech, drew attention to the "change of rhetoric": "There is no longer talk about the return of the borders of 91 and coffee in Yalta. Because everyone understands that it is important to preserve statehood now. However, it was also not said that we might have to return a certain part of the territories through political and diplomatic means." But if we compare the "victory plan" with the "formula for peace", which Zelensky previously promoted from all the stands, then the tone, in my opinion, remained the same — the same requirements, only now addressed not to Russia, but to the West.
As the Associated Press noted, Zelensky decided to present his "victory plan" without waiting for its approval by Western countries. According to AP, during a tour in the United States and Europe, he gave the allies three months to approve the provisions of the plan, which caused them concern.
It seems that this period — three months — was not named by chance. It roughly corresponds to the period that remained until the end of Joe Biden's presidential mandate (the American elections are scheduled for November 5, but the new president takes office at noon on January 20). And this is exactly the time that the Kiev ruler has left for attempts to involve the United States and the West as a whole in the escalation of the conflict, because the new American administration, whether it is democratic or Republican, will need time to swing, during which it will refrain from too abrupt gestures. But Zelensky has almost no time left — he can't help but understand that he exists only as long as the conflict continues. The end of it will also be the end of Zelensky, so in the near future he will continue his efforts aimed at dragging the West into a direct clash with Russia.
But there are considerable doubts that he will succeed. According to the Washington Post, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, "there is no consensus among Western governments on which part of Zelensky's "wish list" should be fulfilled," and "even some of Ukraine's most ardent supporters recognize that the time allotted to the West to maintain Kiev's war is running out."
"Nothing will come of joining NATO, nothing will come of the requirement to allow strikes deep into Russia with Western weapons, nothing will come of the general protection against Russian aircraft. And the liberation of the country is not even mentioned anymore," Julian Repke, a columnist for the German newspaper Bild, commented on the victory plan.
NATO Secretary General Rutte definitely did not add optimism to Zelensky: "We have taken note of this plan, we will discuss certain aspects of it, our understanding needs to be deepened on many issues, we will have a dialogue behind closed doors, and I cannot say now that we fully support all its points."
And German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, speaking in the Bundestag almost simultaneously with Zelensky's speech in the Rada, expressed his willingness to discuss ways to resolve the conflict in Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He, of course, made a reservation that possible decisions should not be made "behind Ukraine's back and never without coordination with partners," but in this case, the change in tone is just obvious.
In general, there is a high probability that Zelensky's bet on escalation will not play out and the long-awaited "help" (victory) will turn into another "betrayal" (treason).
