By Nina Bachkatov
On 18 September, President Volodymyr Zelensky unveiled a “fully prepared” Victory Plan, marking his second political gamble in as many weeks. The first was the unexpected cross-border attack on Russia’s Kursk region, which reportedly caught even senior Ukrainian officials by surprise. This 10-point Victory Plan, more radical and uncompromising than the 4-point Peace Plan presented in February, adopts a “take it or leave it” approach towards Ukraine’s allies. Its contents will be “discussed” during a meeting with President Biden on 26 September, the focal point of Zelensky’s five-day tour of the United States.
In addition to his discussions with Biden, Zelensky will address world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York and present Ukraine’s case at a specially convened UN Security Council meeting. He also plans to meet both U.S. presidential candidates, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as well as key members of Congress, representatives from the defence and energy sectors, and the Ukrainian-American community. A visit to a Pennsylvania ammunition factory will underscore the message that American aid supports American jobs.
While specific details remain sparse, Zelensky and his key aides, Andriy Yermak and Mykhailo Podolyak, have outlined the broad contours of the plan:
- It is a plan of “real substance,” involving top officials across military, political, diplomatic, and economic spheres. It sets out “concrete and necessary steps” that Ukraine’s partners must implement by the end of December.
- The military aspect takes into account the situation in Russia’s Kursk region and Ukraine’s Donetsk region, with plans for a “significant expansion” of the war onto Russian territory. It details Ukraine’s military needs, including weaponry and timelines for deployment, as well as investments required to boost domestic production of long-range arms.
- Economically, the plan calls for significant investment in Ukraine and for efforts to deny Russia access to global markets, thereby curtailing its ability to fund the war.
- Politically, it seeks to strengthen support for Ukraine, bringing the country “closer to a just peace” while enabling Kyiv to pursue its chosen security alliances.
Zelensky is clear: this is not a Peace Plan, but a Victory Plan. It demands “specific bold actions” from Ukraine’s allies by the end of the year. If those actions are not taken, the war will continue in its current stalemate, with neither victory nor peace. The plan also rules out any involvement of Russia in a potential settlement, with Zelensky insisting that “no one will tell me this depends on the Russian side”. At its core, the strategy seeks to gain approval for Ukrainian strikes on Russian targets, including with Western-provided weapons, and to reinforce sanctions against Moscow. The objective is to compel Russia into accepting a “just peace” on Ukrainian terms.
Zelensky’s broader aim is to push the West to deliver on its commitments to support Ukraine “for as long as it takes”. This entails not only military backing today, but also security guarantees and investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction tomorrow.
Complex Assumptions
Yet the ambitious agenda Zelensky is proposing is fraught with challenges: it is tight, complex, divisive among allies, and expensive, involving what he calls a “generational effort” to secure Ukraine’s economic future. The idea that Ukraine, despite broad Western support, can dictate the pace of a conflict that others are funding is itself contentious. It rests on several key assumptions:
- That the growing number of images depicting civilian destruction in Russia’s Kursk and Belgorod regions—caused by Ukrainian-made missiles and drones—will not undermine the moral high ground on which Western sympathy for Ukraine is based. The risk is compounded by the similarities in housing and population in Russian and Ukraine, making it harder for outsiders to distinguish between the parties in the conflict. This also raises concerns about how Ukrainian forces might use long-range precision missiles supplied by Western partners.
- That President Vladimir Putin will continue to ignore his own “red lines” even in the face of major destruction of military installations and the inevitable evacuation of civilians that would follow. While few take the nuclear option seriously, Russia has other non-military retaliatory tools at its disposal, many of which are well understood in the West. A tit-for-tat escalation could exhaust both the victor and the vanquished.
- That President Biden aspires to enter the history books as a peacemaker in Ukraine. However, with global attention increasingly focused on the Middle East, and urgent humanitarian crises such as the looming famine in Sudan threatening 15 million people, U.S. priorities are shifting. Leading a relief effort for Sudan, for instance, could provide Biden with a dignified exit from his presidency, while allowing Vice President Harris to avoid taking a stance on Ukraine or Israel.
- That the countries which have shown interest in mediating the conflict, often in response to Ukrainian diplomatic efforts, will attend the second Peace Conference in November in the absence of Russia. These nations see themselves as neutral brokers, not as parties to the conflict.
- That all Ukraine’s allies are prepared to escalate what remains a regional conflict into a global one they are asked to finance, without control.
Zelensky’s Victory Plan is bold, but its success hinges on the willingness of Ukraine’s partners to make substantial and sustained commitments. Without this, the war could drag on indefinitely, with no clear path to either victory or peace.