Ukraine's ‘victory plan’ and problems of its implementation in practice — opinion

In particular, the first point emphasizes the need for Ukraine to join NATO as soon as possible, and this is where the problems already begin. 

As of the end of October 2024, at least seven NATO member states were skeptical about such an invitation or rejected it altogether. Germany's position is of course particularly important - and it is in line with the tradition of its respective policy. At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, then Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) vehemently opposed the accession of Ukraine and Georgia, citing Russia's highly critical position – and prevailed. Naturally, Vladimir Putin (although not President at the time, but Prime Minister) felt encouraged by this: Just a few months later, in August, Russia launched an invasion of Georgia and ‘definitively’ destroyed its territorial integrity by recognizing the separatist provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as ‘independent states’ (they had been de facto controlled by Moscow long before). The West did not react. Germany in particular, a major economic power, could have done something about it, but instead even worked in Putin's favor – for example, by strongly supporting the construction of the Nord Stream I and II natural gas pipelines, which were nothing else than a Russian geopolitical project. Nord Stream I was opened in 2011 and helped Moscow to pump natural gas directly to Germany, bypassing Ukraine and Poland, thus earning many billions of euros that flowed into financing the military and armaments, the secret services and Putin's entire regime in general.  

In October 2024, Merkel's successor as Federal Chancellor, Olaf Scholz (Social Democratic Party, SPD), declared that he was against inviting Ukraine to join NATO. He also criticized the fact that Ukraine's ‘definition of a victory’ was ‘unclear’.  Zelenskyy was aware of all this.  Furthermore, Scholz repeated his long-known rejection of the delivery of German Taurus missiles to Ukraine because he (as always) was afraid of an ‘escalation’ of the war – as if such an escalation could come from the defender and not exclusively from the aggressor. In any case, with this position Germany is—intentionally or not—objectively helping Russia and its war against Ukraine. Scholz can hardly change it, however, because he would be admitting that he was wrong all along. He also wanted to distract from the fact that Germany does not want a victory for Ukraine – however such a goal could be defined (a logical definition would be the expulsion of all Russian soldiers from Ukrainian territory without exception). The reason for this is that large parts of the German (and Western European) political elite fear ‘instability’ in Russia or even its ‘disintegration’ in such a case (which, of course, is not even on the horizon). The British Daily Telegraph commented in October 2024: ‘An invitation would not automatically allow Ukraine into NATO, but it would send a clear statement of intent to Vladimir Putin about the West’s resolve in defeating Russia.’  But this is precisely the signal the West does not want to send.

Another highly unpleasant but undeniable truth is that almost all Western European politicians and parties are much more concerned with their results in elections (which are always imminent somewhere) than about the fate of Ukraine. And ‘peace rhetoric’ is very often useful for election campaigns – even if it ultimately benefits the militarist and imperialist Putin of all people. Early federal elections will be held in Germany on Feb. 23, 2025 – and Scholz's SPD is already launching a ‘peace electoral campaign’ (German: Friedenswahlkampf), which will inevitably be at Ukraine’s expense. It is quite possible (if not probable) that Scholz and his party will ‘sacrifice’ Ukraine if they come to the conclusion that this is necessary in order to do as well as possible in the elections.

Western parties and politicians against Ukraine joining NATO

Moscow has, of course, long mobilized politicians and parties close to it in Europe and North America against all efforts by Ukraine to move closer to NATO in order to eventually join it. It is no coincidence that these are largely the same political forces that have been constantly warning of an ‘escalation’ since the beginning of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. By doing so, they want to prevent military and other support from the EU, NATO, the United States, the G-7 etc. to Ukraine.

At the same time, these political forces have little to nothing to say about the genocide that Russia is committing in Ukraine and the support of China, Iran and North Korea (which sent troops to Russia in October 2024 to fight against Ukraine) for the Russian war. It is time to openly state in politics, media, social sciences etc. that the aim of these forces is to contribute to Russia's military victory over Ukraine, from which they expect political, propagandistic and financial benefits. The slogan of ‘peace with Russia’ is also very popular in precisely these circles. Those who spread it want to suggest that this ‘peace’ does not depend on Russia (which could of course end the war at any time), but on the West; and that those countries that have already been and may still be attacked by Russia should not defend themselves. This is Russia's ‘fifth column’ in the West, and it is very active – predominantly (but not exclusively) in radical left-wing and right-wing parties, organizations, groups and initiatives with the aim of influencing public opinion in their respective countries in favor of Russia (and thus inevitably against Ukraine).

Ukraine, NATO, and Trump

Even if Russia would terminate its war today, it would not be realistic to invite Ukraine to join NATO: Putin's de facto ally Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, would not agree to this (he called the ‘victory plan’ ‘more than terrible’ ), with Slovakia (whose Prime Minister Robert Fico warned that Ukraine joining the Alliance would be ‘a good basis for the Third World War’ and that he would ‘never agree’ to this ) and Turkey also having serious doubts.

Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5 means a significant change in the global political arena, which also affects Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly announced that he will reconsider U.S. support for the country. This would only be logical, as he and his pick for Vice President, JD Vance, have not concealed their ‘admiration’ for Putin. 

In addition, they constantly polemicized against Ukraine, even blaming it for the war   and claiming other bizarre things (such as that they could ‘end the war within 24 hours’ ) about Ukraine, which they are possibly prepared to ‘sacrifice’ in order to satisfy Russia. But even if the current Vice President Kamala Harris had won the presidential election, Ukraine would still be a long way from joining NATO: The West is simply too afraid of Russia – in obvious contrast to Ukraine, whose courage is completely incomprehensible, indeed downright scary, to many in this West. This is because they themselves out of cowardice would have long since surrendered to Putin's cutthroats.

In November 2024, reports emerged that the Ukrainian leadership drafted its ‘victory plan’ with the possibility of a new Trump presidency in mind. Two proposals were specifically tailored for this case: replacing some U.S. troops in Europe with Ukrainian forces after the war and sharing key Ukrainian natural resources with Western partners. 

Prospects for the future

The ‘victory plan’ is a summary of Ukraine's goals in its defense against the Russian war of annihilation. It is important to notice that the document does not provide for the cession of territories to Russia in exchange for some kind of ‘peace,’ and rightly so. Thus, Anne Applebaum highlighted in this context that Putin is not actually fighting for land, ‘but to destroy Ukraine as a nation. He wants to show his own people that Ukraine’s democratic aspirations are hopeless. He wants to prove that a whole host of international laws and norms, including the United Nations Charter and the Geneva conventions, no longer matter. His goal is not to have peace but to build concentration camps, torture civilians, kidnap 20,000 Ukrainian children, and get away with it – which, so far, he has.’ 

What is rarely or never mentioned in Western European and North American considerations of Russia's war against Ukraine are the Crimean Tatars. In mid-November, their highest executive-representative body, the Mejlis, issued a statement declaring that they will not accept any peace deal that does not include the repatriation of the Crimea peninsula, which Russia had annexed in 2014. According to the statement, a mandatory condition for launching official negotiations on the issue of ending war should be the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders – including Crimea. 

It is not apparent how the ‘victory plan’ could contribute directly to ending the war: This is only possible on the battlefield, even if many Western politicians, parties, business people, functionaries, activists, journalists, petition initiators, social scientists etc. (some of them with good contacts in Russia or even in the Kremlin) vehemently demand ‘negotiations with Putin’ and the handover of Ukrainian territories to Russia under the slogan ‘land for peace’, which of course would not only not satisfy Moscow's ‘appetite’ for more and more war and territories, but would actually encourage the opposite. It is no coincidence that this are basically the same Western ‘stakeholders’ who invest a lot of time, money and effort to prevent Ukraine from being supported. They, thus, intentionally or unintentionally, do Russia's ‘business’ here.

All in all, the biggest problem with the ‘victory plan’ is that it is very unlikely that Ukraine will join NATO in the foreseeable future (which also became clear at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the NATO member states in Brussels on Dec. 3-4, 2024). Of course, Russia is also aware of this and will do everything it can to maximize the benefits of this fact.

The Kremlin has repeatedly made it clear that it does not intend to make any concessions, let alone end the war or only ‘freeze’ it along the current frontlines (which is the preferred idea of many Western European and North American politicians, media people and other observers). To establish peace in Ukraine, Russia (and its army) has therefore by military and other means to be brought to a condition where it cannot continue the war – regardless of what Putin wants. The likely alternative to this would be the destruction of Ukraine as a state, its de facto disappearance from the map and the subjugation of the remaining population to the will of the Kremlin. And what this means can be seen in the Russian-occupied territories in the south and east of Ukraine since 2014, where everything ‘Ukrainian’—language, culture, traditions, etc.—is being consistently exterminated.