Zelensky's victory plan faces US criticism, calls for new strategy

Volodymyr Zelensky's "Plan of victory" did not meet the approval of American officials. "In fact, Ukraine needs something far more ambitious: an urgent change of course," emphasises The Economist.

Zelensky's plan disappointed American officials. According to many, the plan, instead of relying on a comprehensive strategy, is simply another request for more weapons and the lifting of restrictions on long-range missiles. However, the British weekly notes that "in fact, Ukraine needs something far more ambitious: an urgent change of course."

The Economist emphasises that Ukraine's situation is deteriorating due to Russia's slow but steady advances in the east of the country, especially around the city of Pokrovsk. Although the Russians lost a lot during the fighting, "Ukraine is also struggling."

Additionally, there are other consequences of the war. The Russians regularly destroy the power networks in Ukraine. With the approaching winter, Ukrainians will struggle with power outages lasting several hours. "The Economist" points out that "people are tired of war".

The Ukrainian army is also fighting to mobilise among its citizens to train enough soldiers to at least hold the front line, not to mention regain lost territories. "There is a growing gap between the total victory many Ukrainians say they want and their willingness or ability to fight for it," writes the British weekly.

Fatigue is also evident outside Ukraine's borders. The article notes that the far-right in Germany and France consider supporting Ukraine a waste of money.

The potential victory of Donald Trump in the upcoming elections also does not inspire optimism. Trump believes that he will quickly end the war because in Russia they are "afraid of him," and in Europe they worry because what he says, he means "seriously".

"If Mr Zelensky continues to defy reality by insisting that Ukraine’s army can take back all the land Russia has stolen since 2014, he will drive away Ukraine’s backers and further divide Ukrainian society" writes "The Economist".

The article emphasises that regardless of whether Trump wins in November, "the only hope of keeping American and European support and uniting Ukrainians is for a new approach that starts with leaders stating honestly what victory means". "The Economist" has long believed that Russia did not attack Ukraine for its territory but to prevent it from becoming a prosperous democracy oriented towards the West.

"Ukraine’s partners need to get Mr Zelensky to persuade his people that this remains the most important prize in this war. However much Mr Zelensky wants to drive Russia from all Ukraine, including Crimea, he does not have the men or arms to do it," we read.

"The Economist" continues, that Western leaders must make the overarching war goal credible by ensuring that Ukraine has military potential and security guarantees. "This will require greater supplies of the weaponry Mr Zelensky is asking for. Ukraine needs long-range missiles that can hit military targets deep in Russia and air defences to protect its infrastructure. Crucially, it also needs to make its own weapons."

The second guarantor of security would be inviting Ukraine to NATO. However, membership in the Alliance would be controversial and involve risks. Occupied territories would have to be excluded from the guarantees of Article 5.

"A firmer promise of NATO membership would help Mr Zelensky redefine victory; a credible war aim would deter Russia; NATO would benefit from Ukraine’s revamped arms industry. Forging a new victory plan asks a lot of Mr Zelensky and Western leaders. But if they demur, they will usher in Ukraine’s defeat. And that would be much worse," summarises the British weekly.