Ukraine’s Victory Plan
October 21, 2024
On September 26, 2024, Presidents Biden and Zelensky met in Washington. The latter presented to his host, Ukraine’s plan to achieve “victory over Russia” and President Biden reaffirmed his determination to provide Kyiv with the support it needs to win. The same day, he also directed the Department of Defense to allocate all of its remaining security assistance funding that had been appropriated for Ukraine by the end of his term in office.[i]
Three weeks later, on October 15, 2024, President Zelensky presented his “Victory Plan” this time to the Ukrainian parliament. The plan consists of Five Points and three so far secret annexes.[ii]
The first point is an invitation for Ukraine to join NATO. “An unconditional invitation, right now,” the President emphasized.
The second point is defense. It outlines the irreversible strengthening of Ukraine’s defense against Russia, the aggressor.
The third point is deterrence. Ukraine offers to deploy a comprehensive non-nuclear strategic deterrence package on its territory, sufficient to protect the country from any military threat posed by Russia.
The fourth point is strategic economic potential. Ukraine offers its strategic partners a special agreement for the joint protection of the country’s critical natural resources and critical metals including uranium, titanium, lithium, graphite, and other strategically valuable resources, which are a significant advantage in global competition.
The fifth point is security-related. It is designed for the post-war period and involves replacing certain US military contingents stationed in Europe with Ukrainian units that have gained real experience in modern warfare, the use of Western weapons, and cooperation with NATO troops. This fifth point might be an olive branch extended to Mr. Trump who has always called on Europe to do more for its defense, but whether the European members of the Alliance would support it is another question.
The three secret annexes were shared with the US and some European partners but have not been made public yet.
The same day, Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center’s “Russia Analytical Report, Oct. 7-15, 2024”, quoting reports in some Western newspapers said that there is talk behind closed doors in Western capitals of a deal in which “Moscow retains de facto control over… one-fifth of Ukraine it has occupied—though Russia’s sovereignty is not recognized—while the rest of the country is allowed to join NATO or given equivalent security guarantees.” (emphasis added) Some of these discussions were echoed in Kyiv, according to Der Spiegel. “For the first time since the Russian invasion in February 2022, the Ukrainian capital is seriously discussing scenarios in which the country foregoes the complete reconquest of its occupied territories, almost 20% of Ukrainian territory, for the time being,” the German outlet reported.[iii]
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters he had yet to see the details of Zelensky’s newly revealed “victory plan,” but said that any proposals should be treated as “camouflage” for “an American plan to fight us until the last Ukrainian.” “A different plan that could indeed be peaceful is if the Kyiv regime realized that its current policy is hopeless, sobered up, and recognized the reasons that led to this conflict surrounding Ukraine,” Peskov said.[iv]
Unfortunately, with the Russian forces continuing to gain ground, though at a cost, with its power plants having suffered extensive damage, and war fatigue setting in, Ukraine is entering another tough winter. Even supporting Ukraine militarily through the use of Russia’s frozen assets in the West, a “solution” reflecting the limits of European assistance, would not solve Kyiv’s need for endless aid. In other words, the frequent references by US officials to “the long haul” are now becoming somewhat questionable. Moreover, Le Monde reported on October 11, that the welcome extended to Ukrainian refugees is beginning to give rise to tensions in countries where they were once welcomed warmly.
The possibility of former President Trump emerging as the victor is also a problem. Before Mr. Zelensky’s recent meeting with the former President in Washington, the latter hailed his alliance with Zelensky – but added: “I also have a very good relationship – as you know – with President Putin.” And last Thursday, he called President Zelensky, “one of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever seen” and said, “But he should never have let that war start. That war is a loser.” Even if Vice President Harris were to win the presidential race, the people of Ukraine would continue to suffer the consequences of a long-drawn-out conflict with Russia.
On October 17, the European Council reconfirmed the EU’s unwavering commitment to providing continued political, financial, economic, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support to Ukraine and its people for as long as it takes and as intensely as needed. “Russia must not prevail,” they said.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, ahead of the meeting of NATO Defense Ministers in Brussels on 17 and 18 October, said that the allies are working on initiatives to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to NATO membership. In response to a question he again said, “Ukraine will join the Alliance, of course, when the time is right. And we will discuss, of course, also this item in Zelensky’s victory plan.” This was a tepid response to Mr. Zelensky’s call for “an unconditional invitation, right now” to join NATO.
In the first session of the two-day meeting, Defense Ministers met in an expanded format that for the first time included partners Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, as well as the European Union reflecting NATO’s growing interest in the Indo-Pacific regardless of the war on the European continent.
The next day, in his opening remarks at the press conference following the two-day ministerial meetings he said, “We will continue to stand by Ukraine…Supporting Ukraine is not an act of charity. It is also an investment in our own security. Because the cost of letting Putin have his way, would be much higher than the cost of supporting Ukraine. Ukraine’s fight is our fight.” And this was his response to a question on Ukraine’s NATO membership: “Obviously, we all know that Ukraine will become a member of NATO, so the question is exactly when and when the invitation will take place. But that was not the main issue of the debate last night.”[v]
Also on October 18, President Macron, Chancellor Scholz, Prime Minister Starmer, and President Biden met in Berlin. The White House readout of the meeting said that they discussed President Zelensky’s Victory Plan and reiterated their resolve to continue supporting Ukraine in its efforts to secure a just and lasting peace, based on international law, including the UN Charter, and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.[vi] Kyiv’s NATO membership was not mentioned.
To sum up, the first point of Ukraine’s Victory Plan was not met with enthusiastic support. Because, after Finland’s and Sweden’s accession, NATO is now a thirty-two-country Alliance. Expecting Moscow to agree, in a peace deal, to Ukraine becoming the thirty-third member of NATO is a non-starter. However, Ukraine’s becoming a member of the EU is a possibility to be explored. As for meeting Ukraine’s long-term security guarantees against further Russian aggression, a bilateral non-aggression treaty, preferably endorsed by the UN or the OSCE could be a way out. The loss of territory by Ukraine appears inevitable.
The Soviet Union or the Empire became history in only a decade. During the years following its collapse, the former members of the Warsaw Pact, which had remained forcibly under communist regimes since the end of the Second World War, others under Soviet occupation and yearning for independence, crossed over to the “other side” in exercising what was their indisputable right under international law.
Nonetheless, the West could have done more to manage Russia’s frustration, try to build a partnership with Moscow, and perhaps change the course of history. Indeed, there were no formal commitments of the kind Russia has referred to, that NATO would not expand even an inch eastward beyond the Oder River. But one may say, in all fairness, that at least an understanding was given.
Today, the war in Ukraine is no longer a war between Ukraine and Russia but a battle between the US and its European partners who are also providing extensive military support to Kyiv. However, European members of NATO prefer finding a way to end the fighting sooner than later because for them any “peaceful” solution is a better option than rising defense expenditures, continuing bloodshed, and the prospect of a nuclear confrontation with Russia.
Washington saw the Russian onslaught against Ukraine as an opportunity to weaken Russia and focus on its strategic competition with China. Russia’s weakening and isolation have been accomplished to a considerable extent. Today, however, Washington is bogged down not only in Ukraine but in the Middle East as well.
With the huge loss of lives and devastation in Ukraine, Gaza, and Lebanon, Europe and the Middle East are desperate for peace. Unfortunately, it appears that proxy wars, an increasingly popular post-Cold War way of “indirect” military confrontation, will continue in the foreseeable future.
As for Türkiye, the 16th BRICS Summit will start tomorrow in Kazan under Russia’s chairmanship. The summit may offer new indications about or witness a further step in Turkish foreign policy’s transformation.
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has announced that it has decided to award the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024 (the Economics prize) to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson for helping to understand differences in prosperity between nations. Moreover, the Academy says that this year’s laureates have demonstrated the importance of societal institutions for a country’s prosperity. Societies with a poor rule of law and institutions that exploit the population do not generate growth or change for the better. The laureates’ research helps us understand why.[vii] (emphasis added)
On the one hand, we in Türkiye are extremely proud that Professor Daron Acemoglu, a Turk, has won the prize. But, on the other hand, judging by where we find ourselves today, it is clear that we have not understood even a word of what the three laureates have said.
[i] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/09/26/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-u-s-support-for-ukraine/
[ii] https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/plan-peremogi-skladayetsya-z-pyati-punktiv-i-troh-tayemnih-d-93857
[iii] https://www.russiamatters.org/news
[iv] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/10/16/kremlin-says-hasnt-seen-zelenskys-victory-plan-urges-kyiv-to-sober-up-a86707
[v] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_229585.htm?selectedLocale=en
[vi] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/10/18/readout-of-the-meeting-of-president-macron-of-france-chancellor-scholz-of-germany-prime-minister-starmer-of-the-united-kingdom-and-president-biden-of-the-united-states/
[vii] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/press-release/
No comments:
Post a Comment