Ukraine’s Victory Plan: Much ado about nothing

Zelenskyy has been whispering about this victory plan for quite some time.

The Russia-Ukraine War has persisted for the last two and a half years without either side inching toward a decisive victory. The confrontation has seen numerous seesaw battles, changing fortunes, and the occupation and counter-occupation of territories by both adversaries. In an attempt to ‘clinch’ the war, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy presented a victory plan to President Biden during his recent visit to the U.S. However, having a victory plan is one thing; implementing it against resource constraints and other challenges is another. The victory plan reflects, at best, Ukraine’s overconfidence stemming from recent territorial gains, and it would likely struggle in practice.

Zelenskyy has been whispering about this victory plan for quite some time but it is only now that he has come out with some details about the plan’s components. Apparently, the victory plan has been mooted at a time when the American public opinion is divided on the issue and former President Trump is already threatening to cut military aid to Ukraine if he wins the November elections. Further, the so-called victory plan is less about changes in Ukraine’s strategic designs against Russia and more about getting support from the US and other NATO allies through full-time membership of NATO, precision-strike weapons and fast-tracking financial assistance. For instance, Ukraine would like to use long-range missiles to hit deep inside the Russian territory, something that the US has not allowed so far. Ukraine has overtly positive illusions about mobilising allies’ support towards an early and favourable the war conclusion.

The Ongoing Conflict

However, Ukraine’s self-bolstering of a victory plan is a debatable proposition. All that President Zelenskyy got from the Washington visit is a promise of larger war mobilisation support from the Pentagon along with more support from other NATO stakeholders. The primary reason for Ukraine’s new found confidence comes from the territorial gains made in recent battles within the Russian territory. It is sitting over some 1200 square kilometers of Russian territory that President Vladimir Putin is struggling to take back. Ukraine has managed to get belated but vital budgetary support from the US and other countries. This has enabled the country with necessary ammunition to take the war to the Russian territory. Ukraine’s war strategy (so far) has been quite useful, enabling it to overcome weaponry shortages and change the war landscape to its advantages in many sectors of the war.

 Ambitious Aspirations

Neverheless, Ukraine’s latest victory plans is perhaps too ambitious and a poor reflection of overconfidence. Several factors corroborate to this hypothesis. First, Ukraine may have managed a protracted war and has even converted an active defence into offensive defence. However, it is a small neighbour to Russia and at best can perpetuate the stalemate position for some more time. Great powers may have lost few wars against smaller countries in past but that typical international relations theory may not work here. In the long run, Ukraine will find the going tough.

Second, if Ukraine has managed some territorial advantages by occupying some portions of Russia, the same cannot be stretched too far into Russia. The latter, by virtue of vast territorial expanse, has strategic depth. Smaller portions of territory would certainly hurt Russia in terms of diluted great power image but such territorial losses are not going to create existential crisis for the country. Ukraine may have been good on defence but may falter at offence hereafter.

Third, Russia has a well-established budgetary advantage over Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine that spent $65 billion on defence last year, amounting to 37 per cent of its GDP, Russia spent $109 billion, amounting to only 5.9 per cent of its GDP. With a small GDP base, Ukraine has perhaps reached a threshold and will find it difficult to stretch its budgetary limits, unless supplemented through liberal military aid from the US and other NATO countries. On the other hand, Russia can easily afford to dip more into its pockets and eak out more share of its GDP for military expenditure for many years to come. The long-term edge, therefore, lies with Russia.

Fourth, the origins of victory also lie in material abundance. Unfortunately, Ukraine is too dependent on external allies for the very sustenance of its supply chain logistics. Its once powerful and vibrant military industrial complex (MIC) has been the subject of Russian attacks. Although its is working overtime to sustain the ammunition supply-chain, incoming raw material shortages may complicate its commitment to armed forces in future. On the other hand, the Russian MIC, despite reeling under international sanctions, has been immune from Ukrainian attacks and has shown greater resilience. In the long-term, Russian MIC is likely to have an asymmetrical edge over its rival in Ukraine.

Contradictory Narrative of Victory vs. Peace

There is every possibility that Ukraine’s leadership is making statements about a ‘victory plan’ solely for diplomatic purposes. Just a few months ago, Ukraine proposed a strong case for ‘just peace’ at the first peace summit in Switzerland. Since then, it has been vocal about this concept on various international platforms, most recently at the UN General Assembly. The concurrent promotion of a victory plan, and the idea of just peace is, therefore, contradictory. Ukraine may be presenting this victory plan to create leverage for its just peace initiative. However, simultaneously seeking support from the U.S. and NATO for the victory plan while advocating for global backing of a just peace will likely complicate the early resolution of the ongoing conflict.

Modern wars are often indecisive. Ukraine’s victory plan reflects questionable strategic instincts among its previously spirited political and military leadership, potentially perpetuating the conflict. Instead of boasting about a victory plan and a quick conclusion to the war, Ukraine would be wiser to rally powerful and neutral countries around its just peace plan, which is more logical, rational, and ethical. This may provide a viable path out of this protracted and uncertain war.