Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is in the US proposing a ‘victory plan’ for the war against Russia. The idea is to force the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to come to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, from what has been leaked, it seems the cunning plan risks the start of World War III and nuclear escalation.
Apart from massive financial aid, the plan has two other pillars. First, a security guarantee by NATO that seems to mean that its forces directly enter the war. Second, Zelensky is proposing attacks deep into Russian territory, deeper and more extensive than those currently taking place.
Direct combat between NATO and Russia means the outbreak of a major international war. Deep incursions into Russian territory could make Russia have to fight for its survival. But long-standing Russian military strategy states that, if Russia’s very survival is threatened, nuclear weapons should be used.
What Zelensky is doing is understandable from a Ukrainian perspective. The first year of the war, 2022, went well for Ukraine. Russian forces were disorganised and the NATO-trained Ukrainian forces surprised everyone with their successes. The peak was reached around November, which was when Mark Milley, then the US army chief, suggested it would be a good time for Ukraine to negotiate with Russia.
The tide turned in 2023. The Russians regrouped. The war took on a new dynamic. It became a war of attrition, where Russia’s vastly superior numbers, in men and artillery, count for more than Ukrainian bravery. While Russia still has many fighting forces in reserve, Ukraine has had to draft men over 40 and faces significant problems of draft-dodging.
Since 2023, in spite of some tactical victories, Ukraine has been on the back foot. Every heralded new dawn of the war has turned out to be false. That includes the current Ukrainian incursion into Kursk. The Russian region is not militarily significant, while – as even Ukrainian officers have declared on the record – the operation has diverted fighting forces and vital weaponry from the battlefront that matters.
Given that Ukraine is losing the war, we can see why Zelensky would gamble on dragging NATO in. Without new armies joining the war, he cannot win.
US President Joe Biden has so far resisted the calls for the US to send its soldiers. If the war over Ukraine becomes WWIII, it could be a war that no one can win. In a nuclear confrontation, everyone might lose. When Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, mooted he might be ready to put French troops on the ground in Ukraine, he was met with the incredulity of many allies.
It’s not easy to know if Zelensky will succeed in getting NATO involved. Ukraine is wrecked. It has lost 20 per cent of its territory.
We should be no one’s puppet – not Putin’s nor anyone else’s- Ranier Fsadni
At this rate, it could lose up to 40 per cent (although the war has also shown that Russia cannot hope to win more territory without overextending itself). NATO faces a dilemma: the risks of WWIII are too dangerous; handing Putin victory after an illegal invasion would be a humiliating defeat.
If Ukraine negotiates a peace from its current weak position, the US and European politicians who urged Ukraine to continue fighting will carry the political responsibility for Ukraine’s destruction. In March 2022, Putin was ready to negotiate much-better conditions, which Ukrainian negotiators had almost accepted before being told to walk away.
About this grim situation, arguably the most dangerous since the Cuban Missile Crisis, there is little that Malta, either its government or voters, can do. But we can try to hold our European leaders to account – in the European Parliament and elsewhere – by being clear-eyed about the credibility of what we’re told.
We should be no one’s puppet – not Putin’s nor anyone else’s. The Russian invasion was illegal, to be condemned, and any war crimes should be prosecuted. But we should also recognise that Zelensky’s requests don’t square with the rest of what we’re told.
First, European leaders and media keep telling us that Ukraine is turning the tide and that we shall not stop until “victory” (never defined) is achieved. So why does NATO need to enter the war?
If Putin will continue to conquer Ukrainian territory, unless there’s a drastic change, why are we told that the tide is turning?
Second, we are told it’s important to stop Putin in Ukraine because he is the new Hitler. He’s ready to invade other countries. So NATO needs to give Ukraine a security guarantee.
But if NATO guarantees stop Putin, why would he invade neighbouring EU states? They are NATO members, which we’re told would deter him.
And, if Putin is the new Hitler, why would he come to the negotiating table with his tail between his legs? Hitler preferred to wreck Germany and leave it in ruins. But we’re expected to believe that Putin is reluctant to use nuclear weapons, even if he’s losing the war.
The evidence, we’re told, is that he hasn’t used them since the incursions into Kursk. But Kursk is strategically insignificant. Why does it say anything about what Putin would do if Russia is bombed in areas of military importance?
We’re told this war is being prosecuted to defend our way of life. If so, war may be necessary. But if the war is about defending democracy, then the defence of our values begins with freedom from delusion and demanding credible answers when our leaders’ rhetoric doesn’t add up.