Earlier this month de facto president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, visited the White House to present his new Victory Plan to US president Joe Biden. Days before the meeting, Zelensky announced to the world he had a new comprehensive plan for Ukraine’s victory in its war with Russia but provided no details. Biden was the first to learn of it, before Zelensky publicly revealed its contents this past week when he finally shared details of his plan with the world in his speech to the Ukrainian parliament on October 16, 2024.

So what are the details of the Zelensky Victory Plan? Is it a roadmap to eventually winning the war militarily? How different—or not—is it from his and Ukraine’s previous plan and strategy for conducting the war?

The first thing to know about it is the Victory Plan has five critical points Zelensky described in his speech—AND three other critical points he didn’t reveal. Three of the plan’s key elements must remain a ‘secret’, he said

So what we got from Zelensky on October 16 was a 5/8ths Victory Plan. Or, to restate: a 62.5% roadmap to winning the war with Russia. More on the ‘secret three’ shortly.

Joe Biden certainly knows of the three ‘secret’ points. Undoubtedly Zelensky share all eight points with him in his recent meeting. And just as certain, Biden and Zelensky must have mutually agreed not to make the ‘secret three’ points public.

It’s also likely the leaders of other main European NATO countries who Zelensky visited after his meeting with Biden weeks ago—Starmer in the UK, Scholz in Germany, Macron in France—are aware of the full picture but are remaining mute.

But we the public in the USA and Europe, and the rest of the world as well, only get to hear 5/8ths of the Victory Plan. The three secrets are obviously too dangerous or outrageous to share.

Zelensky’s 5-Point Victory Plan

Of the five points he did describe in his speech, at the top of his list as point number one, Zelensky said Ukraine was inviting NATO to offer it immediate membership in NATO. Note this meant that Ukraine was no longer waiting for NATO to invite it, Ukraine, to join; Ukraine was inviting NATO to ask it to join. The Zelensky Plan’s precondition for victory was thus immediate NATO membership!

Zelensky called his second point Defense. That meant NATO providing Ukraine still more weapons, especially more missiles, planes and drones. To quote him directly, Zelensky called for “joint shooting down of Russian planes and missiles”.  That suggests direct involvement by NATO planes and NATO manned anti-missile systems. It perhaps even suggests a NATO enforced ‘no fly’ zone, a demand that Zelensky has been proposing for quite some time.

Even more ominous, Zelensky’s point two included “removal of restrictions on (Ukraine’s) use of weapons”. That statement was undoubtedly a reference to Ukraine’s long standing demand that NATO (UK and Germany) give it long range cruise missiles to let it strike with them deep into Russia, including presumably as far as Moscow which would be within their range.

Point three of the Victory Plan was called Deterrence. By Deterrence Zelensky meant stationing a permanent, albeit non-nuclear, NATO military force within Ukraine. As he said, to ensure victory Ukraine proposed to host a NATO “strategic deterrence package on its soil.” To put it bluntly this could only mean permanent NATO troop ‘boots on the ground’.

The fourth point of the Victory Plan called for the West to tighten sanctions on Russian oil prices and shipments. To date these measures have not had much effect on Russian oil production or sales. The ‘Russian oil price caps’ sanction issued earlier this year has had no effect on Russian oil prices. And Western media largely admits Russia has found various ways around shipping its oil. Russian natural gas continues to ship via two southern Europe pipelines into Europe, one through Turkey and the other actually through Ukraine, both transporting Russian natural gas into Hungary, Bulgaria, the Balkans and even Italy. And from those countries, some of the gas gets resold to elsewhere in Europe. Russian liquefied natural gas has also continued to flow via by sea into western Europe ports. Other official sanctions have proved no less ineffective. Point four wants all that to stop.

Point four also made reference to Ukraine strengthening its economy. Most economic indicators show Ukraine’s economy has continued to deteriorate steadily in 2023-24 as the war has intensified. Ukraine has publicly admitted, for example, it requires $8 billion/month just to keep its government functioning and pay the salaries, pensions and benefits of government employees, among other costs.

The US $61B aid package passed by the US Congress last April will soon be spent. US Speaker of the House, Johnson, has publicly said there’s no more money from Congress for Ukraine. He won’t bring another proposal to the House floor.

Meanwhile, Europe is struggling to pass some kind of measure to raise bonds to fund Ukraine and the war in 2025 by either using the $260 billion of frozen Russian assets in its banks or by using the $260 billion as collateral for raising private money to buy new Euro bonds it would issue. However, neither measure has gained much political traction in Europe which itself is steadily slipping into recession. Either requires the approval of other EU members like Hungary and Slovakia both of which continue to block such measures. Euro neocons are so frustrated they are proposing to throw Hungary and Slovakia out of the EU entirely.

If the preceding four points appear wishful thinking—given that recent US and NATO statements that have rejected all of them—point five is even more fantastic: in it Zelensky said that points one to four would assure Ukraine’s victory. That would then leave Ukraine’s military one of the largest, most experienced and effective military forces in Europe and NATO after the war. A victorious Ukraine would “strengthen NATO” and represent a “guarantee of security in Europe”.  Furthermore, the USA would no longer have to keep its forces in Europe since Ukraine’s forces could “replace the US contingent”.

Zelensky summarized his five points by saying if the US, NATO and the West adopted these five points it would result in the “end of the war no later than next year”! (Zelensky’s full speech is in writing on the Ukraine government’s website).

One can hardly call Zelensky’s Victory Plan a roadmap for military victory. Zelensky’s position remains as it has been since the start of the war: all Russian forces must be driven from Ukraine, including from Crimea, and Ukraine’s 1991 borders restored. His position has been—and remains—Ukraine will commence negotiations with Russia only after it leaves Ukraine. In other words, no negotiations unless Russia first capitulates. Still remains Ukraine’s position even as continues to steadily retreat from territory in its former eastern provinces as its forces are encircled and are being now pushed out of Russia’s Kursk region that Ukraine invaded this past August.

All along the eastern Donbass front Ukraine’s military has been forced out of its former strongholds in key cities like Vuledar, Andeyevka, Robotyne, Toretsk, and is being encircled there as well in various locations like Kourakova, Chasov Yar, Kupiansk and elsewhere. In Kursk three current encirclements have threatened the capture of four Ukraine battalions and Ukraine has given back more than 500 square kilometers of former captured territory. It may have to exit Kursk before the US November election.

In short, the reality is that Zelensky’s Victory Plan is a political wish list, not a military roadmap to a victory that continues to slip away for Ukraine by the day.

The Victory Plan, moreover, is not just a political plan. It is a plan to get NATO into the war more directly in order for Ukraine to win.  It represents an ultimatum to NATO: either accept the Plan’s five points or else Ukraine may lose, Zelensky seems to be saying. And if Ukraine loses, so does NATO lose. NATO may even unravel if that happens.

In addition, Zelensky indirectly is saying the economic cost to the West will be significant. It may lose all the funds thus far invested in Ukraine and all the West’s corporations who have also committed heavily to investing in Ukraine will lose their money as well.

The Zelensky 5-Point Victory Plan is therefore not just an ‘ultimatum’ to NATO but a form of political blackmail to it: either accept the Victory Plan, Zelensky seems to say, or Ukraine will lose the war and so will you NATO!

Russia’s Hardening Position

From the very beginning of the war Russia’s number one demand has always been ‘No NATO’ in Ukraine and Ukraine must remain politically neutral. Its second demand, cemented in concrete in the fall of 2022 as well is that Crimea and the four other provinces are now part of Russia. That will never be reversed. That too is non-negotiable now.  After that, according to Putin, remaining issues are negotiable. He called it, ‘Istanbul II’, last June. It is the start pointing for negotiating. Instanbul is a reference to the first deal agreed to in April 2022 between Russia and Ukraine as result of discussions in Instanbul Turkey. That tentative deal Zelensky subsequently backed out of as result of NATO urging him to reject it outright in April 2022 and to resort to  a military solution to the war backed by NATO weapons and money.

Russia has recently added to its Instanbul II position in its latest warning and red line it recently communicated directly to NATO and the US Pentagon: giving Ukraine the green light to use NATO long range missiles to attack deep into Russia and its major cities means Russia will attack NATO forces directly as well.  Putin added to this warning intimating that Russia response might include using tactical nuclear weapons if necessary. Apparently this warning was taken seriously by most NATO military establishments, including the US Pentagon.

US Neocons vs the Pentagon

When Zelensky visited Washington DC to meet with Biden earlier this month he was accompanied by the newly elected UK prime minister, Keir Starmer. Both he and Starmer were reportedly assured by US Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, that Biden would approve the delivery of UK long range ‘storm shadow’ missiles to Ukraine and their use to strike deep into Russia. But Zelensky-Starmer and Blinken went away empty handed. Biden did not give his approval.

The reason was the Pentagon and US military Joint Chiefs of Staff generals pushed back and US neocons broke rank.

Neocon Jake Sullivan sided with the Pentagon and generals and together they convinced Biden to hold off granting Ukraine and UK approval to deploy and use UK’s storm shadow long distance missiles. That remains the tentative status quo, at least until the US November election after which Biden may change his mind—especially if Trump wins the election.

USA’s Split Positions

The USA notably has not endorsed Zelensky’s Victory Plan. In fact, it has reaffirmed its prior position it does not agree to green light Zelensky’s request for long distance missiles to attack Russia.  The USA—and for that matter NATO in general—has not agreed to fast track Ukraine’s membership into NATO either.

As for the other elements of Zelensky’s 5 point plan, there’s clearly no more money from Congress for Ukraine. The USA position is and remains: Europe is sitting on $260 billion of Russian assets. It should find a way for it to use those assets to fund Ukraine. That possibility is easier said than done, however, since Hungary, Slovakia and soon perhaps Spain and Italy are not too happy about stealing Russia’s assets. Russia has threatened to seize those countries’ business assets in Russia in turn and may have already begun some action in that regard.  And then there’s the question of Russian natural gas that continues to flow into southern Europe, Italy in particular.

There is not a single unified position among the US elite on continuing to fund or militarily support Ukraine, however.  The US neocons are looking for a formula to revive it. And they are increasingly on the defensive in that regard.

Another faction in the elite want to push Ukraine to negotiate with Russia on the basis of proposing a ceasefire and NATO membership in exchange for conceding the territory already virtually won by Russia on the ground so far: Crimea and the four east Ukraine provinces that Russia has legally annexed as part of Russia. But the US doesn’t want to initiate negotiations; it wants Ukraine to do so and offer the ‘land for NATO’ proposal. That proposal, however, is a non-starter for Russia. It will never agree to a NATO presence in even part of Ukraine. It sees that as just a hiatus in the war that will eventually resume later.

Then there is a faction among the US military that wants to focus on preparing for military conflict with China, which it sees as the real challenge to USA hegemony. More than one general has slipped up and publicly admitted war with China was likely by 2030. The longer the Ukraine Project goes on the more the delay in confronting China. Were it over in one year was accepted, but it’s now going on three and the generals and admirals are getting nervous.

Last, and not least, there’s the Israel faction. They see an imminent and costly conflict in the middle east on the horizon. Israel has more political influence by far in the USA than Ukraine. This faction wants to dump Project Ukraine on the Europeans and focus on Israel-Iran.

For now the dominant US position with regard to continuing ‘Project Ukraine’ is twofold:

First, in the very short term keep the status quo in Ukraine as is until the US November 5 elections. The US and Biden regime do not want a collapse of Ukraine before the election. Nor do they want an unforeseen major escalation precipitated by either Ukraine or Russia should the former start launching long range UK missiles into Moscow.

The slightly longer term period from November 5 to January 20, 2025 is less clear. Will Biden still not want a collapse of Ukraine ‘on his watch’, as they say? Or will he allow Ukraine to escalate and leave the mess for his successor, especially if Trump, which now seems likely. Biden has a visceral dislike of Putin and Russia. And who knows how deep his resentment of his own Democrat party goes after they unceremoniously dumped him as their candidate this summer. Then there’s his unknown mental state of mind as a factor. In short, Biden could ‘go all in’ after November 5, as they saying goes, and give Ukraine a green light to further escalate using the long range missiles… or worse.

Which brings the situation of Project Ukraine to the latest event.

Zelensky & Biden in Berlin

It is strange that both the mainstream media in the US and West, as well as those sources more favorably disposed to Russia’s position, have largely ignored discussing the issue of the ‘three secret’ points of Zelensky’s Victory Plan.

Perhaps some light has just been thrown on the ‘three secrets’ by Zelensky himself the day after his speech to his parliament. He attended a general NATO meeting in Brussels yesterday, the 17^th of October, after which he gave a press interview.  In that interview Zelensky made a remarkable statement.  He said that when he was last in New York he spoke with Trump as well as Harris. He then said that Trump told him, after Zelensky apparently shared some of the elements of his Victory Plan, that Trump said Ukraine should either be admitted to NATO or be allowed to have a nuclear weapon!

Zelensky added in the interview that he told Trump he’d rather have NATO membership than the nuclear weapon.  This is a remarkable exchange. Did Trump actually say that? Or is Zelensky trying to undermine Trump on behalf of Biden and the Dems? Trump has yet to reply. Regardless it shows something of Zelensky’s thinking, state of desperation, and potentially how far he’s prepared to go.

What is especially curious about this exchange is that the same day of his interview and statement about choosing the nuclear weapon or NATO, the politically well positioned German magazine BILD said Ukraine had all the knowledge and materials to build a nuclear weapon in just weeks! And most likely it would build one in the vicinity of one of its several Nuclear Power Plants.

To make matters even more intriguing, Ukraine’s foreign minister on the same day as Zelensky’s interview and the BILD article said Russia was planning soon to attack and destroy Ukraine’s nuclear power plants.

This all coincidentally sounds like Zelensky and Ukraine resorting indirectly to nuclear blackmail of NATO and the West, and not just Russia.

In his interview after yesterday’s NATO meeting in Brussels, is Zelensky (with assistance of European neocons) telling NATO: either let us into NATO now or we will build a nuclear weapon as a last resort to try to force Russia to capitulate! Is he bluffing? Or is he saying Ukraine has nothing to lose if Russia advances on Kiev and it is about to be defeated.

In conclusion, maybe…just maybe…something similar to what Zelensky revealed in his interview is hidden in the ‘three secret’ points of Zelensky’s Victory Plan that Biden and US neocons don’t want publicly? At least not until after the November 5 election perhaps.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Birds Not Bombs: Let’s Fight for a World of Peace, Not War 

Dr. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed

By Jack Rasmus

Publisher:‎ Lexington Books (February 28, 2019)

Hardcover: ‎146 pages

ISBN-10:‎ 1498582842

ISBN-13:‎ 978-1498582841

Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed describes how US federal governments, often in cooperation with the largest US private banks, introduced and expanded central banking functions from 1781 through the creation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Based on an analysis of the evolution of the US banking system – from pre-1781, through the 1787 US Constitutional Convention, Congressional debates on Hamilton’s reports to Congress, the rise and fall of the 1st and 2nd Banks of the United States, and through the long period of the National Banking System form 1862-1913, the book shows how central banking in the US evolved out of the private banking system, and how following the financial crash of 1907 big New York banks pushed through Congress the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, creating a central bank which they then managed for their interests.

Click here to purchase. 

Source link