The Economist: The U.S. views Zelensky's victory plan as a failure.

In the United States, Zelensky's victory plan is considered "doomed to fail." Americans are primarily concerned that it clearly leads to escalation. However, the Ukrainian president was not directly informed of this, which is part of the problem, a Ukrainian high-ranking official stated to The Economist on condition of anonymity.

The official, who wished to remain anonymous, claims that the Ukrainian president's plan should be interpreted as "coercive diplomacy" or a way to force Russia to engage in peace negotiations on terms more favorable to Ukraine. However, according to the official, the escalation potential of the victory plan has not been well received in Washington.

"They say it's doomed to fail, although part of the problem is that they don't tell this (Ukrainian) president to his face," The Economist quotes the Ukrainian official.

The official suggests that Russia's next target could be an offensive on the city of Zaporizhzhia, a major industrial center in southern Ukraine located near the Russian-occupied nuclear power plant. The same source implies that Russia may have already regained about half of the territory that Ukraine captured in the Kursk region in August 2024, which was the only significant success for Ukraine following the failed counteroffensive in 2023.

Conversely, Russia does not seem overly concerned about its own escalation plans, involving North Korea in the war, according to The Economist. How unverified North Korean troops will behave on the European battlefield remains an open question. However, as commented by the head of Ukraine's military intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov, such a development is still an "undesirable experiment" for Ukraine.

Victory Plan

Zelensky's victory plan was presented to the Ukrainian parliament on October 16, and to the EU and NATO on October 17. The plan includes: inviting Ukraine to join NATO, strengthening Ukraine's defense, shifting the war's focus towards Russia, deterring Russian aggression, and establishing special strategic and economic agreements with Kyiv's partners. The fifth point concerns the post-war period – Kyiv proposes to replace American troops in Europe with Ukrainian ones after the war.

For over a week, the West has been analyzing the victory plan. It has already sparked numerous discussions among Western politicians and experts. The main tenets of the strategy, particularly the invitation for Ukraine to join NATO, elicit mixed reactions both in Europe and the U.S., especially due to fears of potential escalation of the war.

The president unveiled this plan when many media outlets were reporting that partners in the U.S. and Europe had rejected key points. So why is it needed? An informant has two versions. The first is that the West's refusal is a good reason to initiate negotiations with Russia on unfavorable terms. And to tell critics – we could have won, but we weren't allowed to.

The second version is that refusals mean nothing when there is a plan. Over 2.5 years of large-scale war, we have already received negative responses regarding air defense, tanks, HIMARS, missiles, and F-16 aircraft. So what? We discussed this with experts as well.

On October 23, it was reported that Zelensky is preparing another "victory plan", this time "for domestic use." The president conceived that unlike the victory plan aimed at the West, this plan will finally define steps for Ukraine itself. It is expected to be prepared by the end of 2024. This document will address internal decisions in various areas, including the defense industry, defense, economy, social policy, and more.