ZELENSKYY’S VICTORY PLAN. 5 POINTS AND THREE SECRET ANNEXES
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and President of Ukraine, announced a victory plan that had been announced long ago by the Ukrainian authorities on a very large scale. In order to communicate this victory plan to the entire Ukrainian nation and the international community, the President did so as resoundingly as possible in a speech in the Verkhovna Rada.
That is, this victory plan is presented to the Ukrainian people as a real plan that will help to achieve victory and allow Ukraine to regain its territories, stop the Russian offensive and protect its sovereignty, and protect the Ukrainian people from destruction. So the victory plan, which has been discussed for many months, has finally been made public. And the President has announced its main points. We will now listen to each of the five points. I will briefly give my comments and conclusions, and we will talk specifically about the facts. In other words, how victory is achieved in the vision, according to the opinion of our Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.
I would like to say that this document was obviously prepared by all members of the Headquarters, because all the leaders of the Ukrainian Defense Forces were in the room at the time of the presentation of this plan, listening to the president as co-authors of the plan. So, it was a presentation of the Ukrainian strategy on how to win the war. The highest possible level. That is why we pay so much attention to this.
So, the first point of the victory plan.
"With this particular victory plan right now, it may be possible to end the war no later than next year. The first point is an invitation to join NATO. Now".
So, the first point is an invitation to join the North Atlantic Alliance. In other words, the president believes that a political decision from NATO countries is needed as soon as possible to win. There were additional fragments. So this is brief. The President believes that Putin must see that geopolitical calculations are losing. Russians need to feel this.
"With a concrete plan of victory right now, it may be possible to end the war no later than next year. So, the plan consists of five points and three secret annexes. Point one is geopolitical. Points two and three are military. The fourth is economic. Point five of the victory plan is security. The points are timed, very specifically. The first four are for the duration of the war to end it. The fifth point is for the time after the war to guarantee security. The first point is an invitation to join NATO now. We are a democratic nation that has proven that we can defend the Euro-Atlantic and our common way of life, and other democratic nations. For decades, Russia has been using geopolitical uncertainty in Europe, namely the fact that Ukraine is not a NATO member. And this is what tempted Russia to encroach on our security. And now the fact that Ukraine has been invited to join NATO can be truly fundamental to peace. We understand that NATO membership is a matter of the future, not the present. But Putin must see that his geopolitical calculations are losing. Russians must feel this, that their tsar has lost geopolitically to the world. An invitation is a strong decision that requires nothing but determination. And today the invitation symbolizes much more than just NATO. For us, the decisiveness of the NATO issue for Ukraine also means the inevitability of European integration for Ukraine and the fact that there is clear-cut democracy in Ukraine. And that is why this is the initial point of the victory plan. The first and very important one is a sign of determination. This is what an invitation is. An unconditional invitation now. This is a certainty of how the partners see the place of all of us, the place of Ukraine in the security architecture."
We have seen the first point. What can I say? This point, I did not quite understand why the deputies stood up and applauded. In fact, these negotiations on an invitation from NATO do not depend on Ukraine at all. We have repeatedly said before, both Volodymyr Zelenskyy and even his predecessors, Poroshenko and many foreign ministers, that we want to join NATO. And NATO has been constantly explaining to us, throughout the war, that this is impossible. It is a collective security body. There are countries that oppose Ukraine's accession to NATO. For example, Hungary. There are other countries as well. And, of course, it's very good when we say, political manifests, let's be invited to NATO. It's very good, it's the right thing to do. But these words have nothing to do with the victory plan. Because it is unrealistic. And the leaders of NATO countries who oppose Ukraine's accession have been saying this almost constantly. Therefore, this statement, let's join immediately, NATO will invite us, is unrealistic. NATO did not invite us before Russia's full-scale invasion. And, of course, it is not going to do so now. If it were possible for them, then of course they would move forward on this track. NATO is not going to enter the war on the side of Ukraine. Therefore, it is a bit strange to rely on NATO when they keep saying, "We cannot accept you now". This is an unrealistic part of the plan, it is obviously a political statement by the president. It is correct and we welcome it, and for many years Ukraine has been demanding it. But this is not a plan of concrete actions. This is a decision of other countries. It does not depend on Ukraine in any way. And Ukraine, thank God, is constantly demanding it, but we cannot oblige other countries to agree on our accession to NATO within a certain timeframe. This is a matter of specific interstate relations, first of all. We need not only to address NATO as a political administrative structure, but we need to talk to European countries that are members of NATO and can support this. Then it will become realistic. For now, it is a declaration, and everyone understands this perfectly. The plan provides for the implementation of those things that depend on NATO. Things that we can influence directly. That is, the plan is what we declare and implement within a specific timeframe. We invite them, we talk about it, but these are political statements.
"The second point is defence. This is the irreversible strengthening of the Ukrainian defence against the aggressor. It is realistic to defend our positions on the battlefield in Ukraine and at the same time to bring the war back to the territory of Russia. Therefore, the key to the implementation of this second point, the victory plan, is the successful continuation of the operation of the Defense and Security Forces of Ukraine in certain areas of enemy territory to prevent buffer zones on our land. Irreversible strengthening of the positions of the Defense and Security Forces of Ukraine and destruction of the offensive potential of the Russian Federation in the occupied territory of Ukraine. Assistance from our partners in manning our reserve brigades for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, bringing Ukraine's air defence to a level sufficient to protect our cities and villages from Russian missiles and enemy drones. And joint defensive operations with our neighbours in Europe to shoot down Russian missiles and drones within the range of our partners' air shield. And expanding operations using our Ukrainian missiles and drones, as well as investments in expanding their production in Ukraine. Lifting by partners of restrictions on the use of long-range weapons on all territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia and on the territory of Russia against enemy military infrastructure. And providing Ukraine with appropriate long-range capabilities of missiles and drones and other means of destruction. Providing Ukraine with real-time satellite data and data obtained by other intelligence means. For each of the sub-points of the defence point of our victory plan, Ukraine provides our partners with a clear justification, all the details of what our goals are, how we are achieving them, and how much this will reduce Russia's ability to continue this war. The defence clause of the plan has a secret annex and is accessible only to those partners who have the appropriate military assistance potential."
This is the most important point of the "Victory Plan" because it is the only point that specifically addresses the material component of the war. What about forcing the enemy to negotiate in the first place? We all understand that any political declarations, initiatives, they still cannot stop the Russian offensive by themselves, which continues, and the enemy continues to capture our settlements, inflicts serious losses on the defense forces and advances. How can we stop it? I mean, it's good that we have geopolitics and political declarations, but here are the specifics of how to stop the enemy... And now let's see how the President, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, sees the priorities of the defense plan, that is, the actions of the Ukrainian defense forces. The first point of this plan, the first point in the defense section, is the successful continuation of the operation of the defense and security forces in certain areas of enemy territory in order to prevent buffer zones on our land. Obviously, we are talking about the operation in the Kursk region to prevent the enemy from creating buffer zones. In fact, there is a big question whether it is worth doing this now, since in the battle for the Kursk forests and fields we used very significant operational reserves, very large resources of ammunition and weapons. And while we are fighting there on Russian soil, among these forests and around the district center of Sudzha with a population of 5,000, the enemy, unfortunately, continues to advance in Donbas. The buffer zone there, the Russian one, unfortunately, continues to expand rapidly. The enemy has captured Vuhledar, the enemy is on the outskirts of Selydove and is outflanking the town, the enemy is 3 km from the town of Myrnohrad and 7 km from the town of Pokrovsk. The enemy is fighting in the towns of Chasiv Yar, Toretsk and on the outskirts of Kupiansk. So the situation is very, very difficult, critical at the front. We are unable to stop the enemy's offensive so far. So the question is why we are still fighting with these buffer zones in the Kursk region. Unfortunately, we have not heard whether it is worth fighting at all, concentrating such forces there. It's good that we are fighting on Russian territory, but do we have enough forces to do so? Unfortunately, the president did not say anything about this. A buffer zone in the Sumy region, or in Donbas, or Kharkiv region. Perhaps, after all, we need to look at the priorities, where to concentrate our forces, which are inferior to the enemy. But, unfortunately, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has not said a word about this.
The second point of the defense plan in the defense section. Irreversible strengthening of the defense forces and destruction of Russia's offensive potential in the occupied territory. I don't quite understand what irreversible strengthening means. This is not a military term, obviously. I would like to know from the president what has been done to build at least a line of defense in Donbas, in the Kharkiv region, where the enemy is advancing. I was in Pokrovsk, friends, and I don't see where the defense line is, what has been built there. We are now seeing videos of the battles near Selydove, Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad from drones. There are no defensive positions in any place. I told on the stream about how the enemy shot 9 Ukrainian prisoners of war in the village of Mykolaivka near Myrnohrad. They were just in an empty plantation, in positions that were not equipped at all because they had quickly dug in with shovels. So where are our defense positions and what is the irreversible strengthening of the defense forces? What is this term? Perhaps we should have said that we are building defense lines, we are planning, we are not succeeding, or maybe we are not succeeding at all, but we are going to do it. That is, irreversible strengthening, we need to give some specifics in this, some logic, which is not there now. Because now these are just empty words with nothing behind them. These are very, very irresponsible words. We also see the situation around Vuhledar, where the enemy surrounded the city and there were no rear positions. Similarly, there are battles going on in other parts of the frontline, and we also see no positions for defense. That is, this irreversible strengthening of positions is very strange. And against the backdrop of the diversion of our operational reserves to the Kursk region, the question arises as to why this buffer zone that Russia is creating in Donbas is more important than a buffer zone, for example, in the Kursk region or on the border with the Sumy region. The president does not explain this in any way.
The third item in the defense section. "Assistance from partners in manning reserve brigades for the Armed Forces of Ukraine". I did not quite understand this paragraph, it is not explained in any way. What does it mean that our partners, i.e. our Western allies, should help to man reserve brigades? No way, no details are given. Perhaps this refers to the statement that Poland will announce the creation of a Ukrainian brigade, which will be formed from Ukrainians in Poland, citizens living in Poland. There are no specifics here. One thing is clear: for some reason, Western partners are going to be manning the reserve brigades. This surprised me a lot in this regard. I personally thought that the Ukrainian leadership was responsible for manning the Ukrainian troops.
"Bringing Ukraine's air defense system to a level that is sufficient to protect our cities and villages from Russian missiles and drones and joint defense operations with our neighbors in Europe to shoot down Russian missiles and drones within the range of our partners' air shield." Yes, it's a complicated structure. Bringing air defense to a level that is sufficient to protect our cities and villages from Russian missiles and drones. I don't know, it's obviously about the requirement to supply additional air defense systems. I don't think it can be recognized as sufficient even if we are given three times the number of Patriot batteries, NASAMS and others to cover our cities. Building such an infrastructure and air defense means requires a very large amount of resources. And it is not clear how, when, or whether NATO countries can supply us with so much. Again, this is an appeal exclusively to partners. For some reason, the plan does not say anything about developing the capabilities of Ukrainian air defense systems. And what are we doing to build our own air defense capabilities, i.e., to start producing our own radars, our own anti-aircraft missile systems that would at least intercept slow-moving air targets, drones. And what is being done to deploy an anti-drone air defense system with the use of our own drones. What measures are being taken? Here, again, there is only an appeal to our partners, to our Western allies, that they should, first, provide us with more air defense equipment, and second, cover our western borders with their air defense equipment from their territory. This is also a good political initiative, which presupposes a decision by NATO countries to use their forces in support of Ukraine. So far, NATO countries have categorically said that they will not do this. Therefore, this can be included in some declarative part; this point of the plan does not depend on us at all. And we cannot influence NATO countries with declarations in any way. It's a little confusing, there is a mixing of political statements and plans. In my opinion, a plan is not a call or a request, but an action plan that we follow. And now we have a plan of action that NATO should follow. What it will follow, how it will listen to Ukraine, for what reason it will change its position, which NATO constantly declares about non-interference, is not explained. It is very strange.
"Expanding operations using our Ukrainian missiles and drones, as well as investments in expanding their production in Ukraine." This is a good, correct point. This is our own responsibility, something that depends on Ukraine. Of course, I would like to hear some more specific things about increasing investment, some targeted funding for military units that are adopting the best innovative drone technologies. Changes. We definitely need more than just numbers. It is not the number of missiles and drones that wages war. The war is always fought by the organization, first and foremost, tactics, application, trained personnel who can use them, who are provided with support, and who can create an advantage. Unfortunately, nothing is said about all this. It's just a general phrase about expanding drone and missile operations. It's a bit unclear. In principle, we have maximum expansion. It depends on production capabilities, on the training and organization of troops. But this is not commented on in any way.
"Lifting by partners of restrictions on the use of long-range weapons on all occupied territories. Providing Ukraine with appropriate long-range missiles, drones, and other means of destruction." This is a reasonable, good initiative. Indeed, there is some kind of restriction from the US leadership. We are in negotiations. Indeed, this should be demanded from the US leadership. This does not depend on the entire NATO bloc, but on a particular country. Of course, we need such pressure, such an appeal, such support from the US leadership. This is an appeal to our Western partners, but it is a specific, clear appeal that, in principle, can be resolved very logically and quickly by a particular country, the United States.
The last point in the defense section is to provide Ukraine with real-time satellite data and data obtained by other intelligence means. This is also a specific practical point that depends on specific countries. First of all, it depends on the United States of America. Indeed, there is a problem that sometimes our American partners give us the exact coordinates of Russian targets. Their intelligence is organized at a very high level. And when they give us the coordinates of specific targets in Russia, and they give them quickly, we can use them very efficiently. And there is indeed a problem that, unfortunately, our American partners have recently for some reason restricted the issuance of such precise coordinates, even replaced the people in their military mission who provided us with such coordinates. And I hope that such pressure on this particular issue, specifically on the US military leadership, will lead to a change in position. And this is an absolutely absurd restriction. That is, people are giving us Haimars, they are giving us Storm Shadow, but they are not giving us accurate information about the location of important Russian targets in the area of impact of Haimars and Storm Shadow. This is absurd, of course. This is a specific requirement, it depends on the US leadership, but it is reasonable to include it. I would not say that it is necessary as a separate point in the defense section, but it is as to partners, it is the right story to communicate. Unfortunately, that's all on defense.
All the points of the plan, the three points of the plan, are up to Ukraine. The president said three things about what Ukraine should do in terms of victory and what the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief should do. The first is the successful continuation of the operations of the Defense Forces in certain areas of enemy territory, that is, in the Kursk region. The second is the irreversible strengthening of the Defense and Security Forces of Ukraine in the occupied territory. And the third is the expansion of operations with the use of drones and missiles, Ukrainian drones and missiles, as well as investments in production expansion. That is literally three phrases - that's all the Supreme Commander-in-Chief thinks he needs to say to achieve victory. That is, there are no plans for when the Russian offensive will be stopped, in what timeframe, what is being done to stop the Russian offensive in the Donbas and Kharkiv regions, what organizational measures are being taken, what is the effectiveness of allocating, for example, 23 billion hryvnias from the budget for the construction of defense structures in 2024. If such large funds have been allocated, where is this line of defense? Where is it located? Why are the troops not relying on it? How have the more than 50 billion hryvnias that the government claims to have allocated to the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Digitalization, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs for the purchase of drones this year been used? Where are the million drones that the president was talking about? Where are they, these millions of drones? Has it really reached the troops? Is it being used properly? Does the quality of the drones that are being transferred correspond to the declared quality? Why is it that the main means of intelligence, autels, mavics, are still being purchased at volunteer expense? Why is there no supply? There were promises that this would be done centrally for all military formations. The president does not say a word about any of this, not a single detail, i.e., no details at all in terms of victory and the Defense Forces Organization, and he does not name any managerial organizational measures or deadlines that depend directly on him. So there is a general statement, and for Americans there are specific things for NATO, such as they have to join NATO, they have to provide more air defense systems, cover part of Ukraine's territory with their air defense, NATO has to lift restrictions on the use of long-range weapons and provide Ukraine with real-time satellite data. But for Ukraine, there are no such specific things written in the victory plan. Neither the construction of a defense line at some point, nor the correct tactics of using drones, nor joint coordination of EW, EI with radar stations. In other words, the president did not set any specifics at all, no points like we demand from the Americans, for us, the president did not set any tasks for himself. In other words, he, even those, although it should be said that he said it himself, we will supply a million drones, we will allocate funds for the construction of defense structures, funds have been allocated, drones have been allocated. Why then is there a deficit at the front? Why do we only see videos of counterattacks in plantations or in some hastily dug positions? Why is nothing said about this? Maybe if this is resolved, then Russia's military potential will really be stopped. But there are no words about this. Nor about production. I mean, okay, we are producing, expanding missiles and drones, but I would like to hear a little bit about the expansion of ammunition production. We have a huge deficit of ammunition, and significant funds have been allocated for all this. Why are there stops in the production cycle, why are supplies constantly stopped? Well, there are some specific things that need to be announced, that we are overcoming these problems. Unfortunately, the president did not formulate any problems. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief obviously sees no problems in conducting combat actions at all. And yet they directly affect the outcome.
The third point of the Victory Plan.
"Ukraine offers to host a comprehensive, non-nuclear, strategic deterrent package on its soil that will be sufficient to protect Ukraine from any military threat from Russia, and that will narrow, as much as possible, the variability of Russia's actions to such prospects, or join an honest, diplomatic process to bring the war to a just end, or be guaranteed to lose the opportunity to continue an aggressive war as a result of Ukraine's use of the provided deterrent package in accordance with Russia's defined military objectives."
Again, in the third point of the defense plan, the president places the responsibility for achieving victory solely on NATO countries. And not just for military supplies, but he simply says, let's deploy NATO troops on the territory of Ukraine with long-range weapons in order to balance Russian aggression. All these things, Ukraine's accession to NATO, the first point, it automatically implies that NATO countries will declare war on Russia, is it realistic now, how do you think, can they start with this now. The second point is to cover us with air defense, that is, to deploy NATO forces to cover at least the western regions of Ukraine, this is in the second point of the Victory Plan. And now, in the third point, there is again a demand for NATO to deploy non-nuclear components, i.e. missile and artillery troops, aviation on the territory of Ukraine. Which, of course, in the context of active hostilities implies NATO's entry into the war.
The third point of the victory plan also places the main responsibility, all responsibility, on NATO, not on Ukraine. So, basically, the same thing is repeated. For some reason, all these calls to NATO are repeated continuously. Although the victory plan is Ukrainian, not NATO's. I would understand if it was Ukraine planning its own forces... But NATO gives orders... I expected the president to talk about our non-nuclear components, about our capabilities in this area. But, unfortunately, everything here again comes down to NATO.
"Point four. Strategic and economic potential. Ukraine is rich in natural resources, including critical metals. They are worth trillions of dollars. These include uranium, titanium, lithium, graphite, and others. These are strategic and strategically valuable resources that will increase global competition either for Russia and its allies or for Ukraine and the democratic world. The deposits of critical resources in Ukraine, along with Ukraine's globally important energy and food production potential, are among the key aggressive goals of the Russian Federation in this war. And this is our opportunity for growth, for the economic growth of Ukrainians, of our entire country, for the economic strengthening of the European Union for the sake of Europe's economic and, in many ways, security autonomy. The economic point of our strategy has a secret annex, which is shared only with certain partners. Ukraine proposes that the United States, together with certain partners, including the European Union, of which Ukraine will be a part, and other partners in the world who are our partners, conclude a special agreement on joint protection of critical resources available in Ukraine, joint investment and use of the corresponding economic potential."
This is, again, a plan for NATO countries, European countries, America, to somehow protect the natural resources that Ukraine allegedly wants to transfer to them. This actual statement is very surprising. Well, okay, there are military units, you know, there is a military defense plan, and you can always say that the president, first of all, does not understand anything about defense, and secondly, he cannot announce everything. The economy, in principle, is in this plan, it is absolutely not secret and obvious, this point. What is surprising about this fourth section of the victory plan? In fact, the mechanisms, guarantees, and protection of our interests have long been developed in the world. This mechanism is called attracting foreign investment. In order for Western countries to protect our natural resources and develop them together with us, there is a simple story that works all over the world. It is to open the roads for business. That is, to attract investors, sell or set up joint ventures to develop mineral resources. Ukraine did not do all of this at all, even before the invasion, and it is not doing it even now. There are only talks that we will sell titanium deposits there. I mean, we have titanium deposits that must be privatized as soon as possible and transferred to large American corporations or European corporations, I have talked about this many times, I wrote about it before the great invasion, and even before President Zelenskyy it was obvious that this is a strategic industry that is important for the whole world and, of course, we are interested in Western corporations having their rights, their interests and being our lobbyists here. So, if this issue is not political, why include it in the victory plan at all? This plan has nothing to do with victory. This is a plan for the economic development of Ukraine. It is up to the government, President Zelenskyy, to create a privatization program, create conditions for the tender and negotiate so that businesses, the West, Western corporations, at least, are interested in entering the development of mineral resources on any terms. This would be logical, at least. The West will protect our field and see it as a strategic goal if we allow Western businesses to enter it. But we don't allow it. Well, this is absurd. Isn't it obvious?
Secondly, I would like to say a strange contradiction. For example, there is a lithium deposit in Ukraine, and we want to attract Western investors there. One of the largest lithium deposits is located where? Near Pokrovsk, 7 kilometers from Russian troops. If we want to attract investors there, why don't we protect these deposits from the Russians and allow them to advance there in peace? Why is there no defense line built there? Why are our operational reserves sent to the Kursk region and not to Pokrovsk? Is it to defend these fields in order to fulfill the fourth section of the victory plan? This is not explained in any way. I would like to remind you that Pokrovsk contains not only lithium but also the single largest coking coal deposit in Ukraine, on which our entire metallurgy depends. The enemy is 7 kilometers away. If we lose this, we will have problems with the steel industry, and we will need Western investors to find raw materials for our steel mills. That is, this should be assessed by experts. This should have been calculated in the declaration. If we attract the West to our field, we have to organize defense, protection, and we have to involve business, of course. Then it will be lobbying, and it will be political interests. And we are not doing anything for this. What is our investment climate like? What business will enter Ukraine with such mafia groups among the security forces, with such a tax policy conducted by Mr. Hetmantsev and the Shmyhal government? This is a criminal policy, it is not beneficial to Ukrainian businesses. Ukrainian business is limited in investment. So how will Western business enter here? There are no words about this. There is a declaration. For some reason, the West has to... This is just strange. Our natural resources must be protected so that Russia does not get them. They can't protect them without us.
"The fifth point is that after the war, if the partners agree, we envisage replacing certain military contingents of the US Armed Forces stationed in Europe with Ukrainian units after the war." Well, what can I say? These are good wishes, so very romantic. What do they have to do with the victory plan? They have nothing to do with victory. This is all after the conclusion of peace in general. That is, this is different. Ukraine is already stable and can send its troops somewhere. Why include this in the plan? It has nothing to do with any actions related to gaining an advantage over Russian troops at the front or political initiatives to achieve peace. This is just strange.
Well, what can I say, friends. I am personally disappointed. I am disappointed that when the President, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, speaks for several months to a nation that is fighting such a difficult war with such great sacrifices and losses, and addresses the army, and when all people are discussing when there will be peace, because they watch the telethon, watch the president's statements and think that okay, we have peace now, it's all for peace, people are waiting for some specifics. What changes for them? How should they act? What will change in their actions in terms of governance? There is not a single word about any of this in the victory plan. If you look at the victory plan, there are five points out of five, all of which contain appeals to Western partners. Three out of five points require Western partners to enter the war on the side of Ukraine as a way to achieve the victory plan. And the only point that logically contains specific actions, i.e., section two, i.e., defense measures, all the specific points there, four specific points, all of which should be implemented by NATO, by Western allies. The three points that depend on Ukraine, there are no specifics at all, no changes, no logic at all, not even an explanation for these actions. There is no explanation as to why we are surrendering Donbas now, why Donbas is not being reinforced with reserves and ammunition, why the buffer zone in Donbas has become less important than Sudzha in Kursk. There is absolutely no understanding. The main story is that there are a lot of emotions and statements. What is the kinetic content of this plan? What does this plan change in material terms? What in this plan, at least one point, affects the stopping of the Russian offensive? Can this plan change anything at all in the war? Dear friends, since there are no specifics here, we can say for sure that this plan, called the victory plan, was presented by Volodymyr Zelenskyy to hide the complete lack of strategy in the actions of the Ukrainian Supreme Commander-in-Chief's office, the complete absence of any specific commitments, the complete unwillingness to take responsibility for the situation at the front, and the desire to shift all responsibility for the war to NATO. If we summarize this victory plan in one phrase, we must say, NATO, you must win the war in Ukraine, not us. And I, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wash my hands of an affair because all the victory plans, all the five points of the victory plan must be done by you, NATO, Americans, Europeans, and we, Ukrainians, will watch you fight for us. This is a summary of what the president said. That is, the hype was so great, the victory plan, and everyone is waiting for us to run to implement it, but there is nothing to implement. It's just a statement to say that all our troubles are the fault of our Western partners. Let them give us more money, let them help us equip the Ukrainian army. This is a new idea, and I have heard it said that in order to win, Western partners should not only train Ukrainian troops but also equip them. Then they should equip the troops, provide weapons, deploy their own units, and cover air defense. This is a completely wrong message. President Zelensky is now showing the world that the fate of the war in Ukraine does not depend on Ukraine at all. It all depends on NATO. Unless NATO enters the war, forms our army, arms it, sends its troops, and covers us, there will be no chance. Communication with the outside world? I'm not even saying, you know, politics can be politics. But what Volodymyr Zelenskyy said today is simply misleading, misinforming Ukrainian society, the army, which is waiting for concrete changes, particular decisions. And this is just bikeshedding. That is, behind the words about peace, a plan for victory is being hidden. In fact, what is being hidden is just blah, blah, blah, empty words that are not tied to any deadlines or to any specific steps on our part. Nothing is said about how to save the lives of our soldiers, how to reduce losses, how to replenish our troops at the front. Whether our mobilization system is effective. Maybe something needs to be changed here. Or how to improve the quality of mobilization, how to improve the quality of training of our troops, so that they are not sent into battle after a month of sitting in tents. So that people are covered by systems, drones, electronic warfare, radars along the entire frontline. So that there is some kind of interaction between these means. We have enough of them, in fact. All this is not said. Nothing is said about the fact that we actually have every opportunity to stop the Russian offensive. Nothing is said that without stopping the Russian offensive, all these pleas, appeals to NATO, all these requests, all these political negotiations are impossible. Unless Ukraine itself changes the way it organizes the use of troops, and carries out its own internal reforms, we cannot stop the Russian offensive now. And as long as we cannot stop it, as long as the enemy sends cannon fodder, and for a few tens of thousands of heads of this cannon fodder continues to seize our territories, continues to kill our people, as long as Putin has such a barter, he simply will not negotiate. He will not negotiate, and NATO will not intercede to get involved in the war itself. Isn't it obvious? Who do we want to mislead? It seems that President Zelenskyy, his target audience, was simply to mislead Ukrainian society. That's all. There are no specifics, no victories, only calls and guidelines for NATO and other countries, no obligations of responsibility for ourselves, no recognition of the critical situation at the front, no measures to correct it. This is an absolutely irresponsible decision. That is, everyone was waiting, everyone was thinking, and bam, the result is zero, just a puff, an empty puff. Who is this for? Why this lie and irresponsibility? It is very disappointing to see this. To see in the news feed constantly dead, dead, dead for Ukraine, and then people say there is a victory plan, but it's just an imitation, just empty noise. It's very unfortunate and very painful, really.
There is no acknowledgement of the situation, no concrete action. What will change? Nothing. This is not a victory plan at all.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Are you suggesting that the real part of the plan was not covered?
Anything is possible. Perhaps, then, the president should have said so, because for several months the whole country had been presenting the existence of a victory plan. And the president came to the Verkhovna Rada to present it. Well, he might as well not have come at all. Why did he have to go in front of deputies? I understood that the government, military leadership, and deputies were gathered to give them a roadmap of what they should do. What the country, the people, society, and the state should do. Everyone is gathered for this purpose. And here, everyone was gathered to say, do nothing, don't change, don't carry out reforms, you don't need any movements. NATO has to do everything. And the fact that the enemy is advancing on us, and NATO may not enter the war today, tomorrow, next year, or in 10 years. So what can we do about it? Are we going to keep begging NATO? So why do we call it a victory plan? I should say it's a plan of begging NATO and shifting all the responsibility for the war in Ukraine and for the fate of Ukraine to NATO. Let's say it like that, then there are no questions. Let the president have a secret victory plan that he does not announce. I just want to say here that we need a victory plan, a strategy for winning the war, in order to implement it, to receive some tasks, so that people can see it, so that an infantryman who did not see this speech can see it, because he has been sitting all day without internet and communication, not in a chair in the Rada or here in our studio in front of the spotlight, but in a trench where it is cold, raining, and where the enemy is constantly hunting, trying to kill, trying to destroy, and moving forward. These people need a plan for victory, they need to understand it, they don't need secret details, they need a plan of where we are going, and they need to believe in this plan, so that people who are defending Ukraine, protecting it, so that they believe that yes, we are being led to victory. This should be understood by every Ukrainian, so we need a victory plan, it should be declared, no secret details, just general correct things, building a defense line, organizing a shift system, coordinating between drones and other high-tech weapons, promotion of the best commanders, well, this is separate, I will make a separate stream and a separate post on how I see the victory plan, because what Mr. Zelenskyy said is just empty talk, which he just distracts, took a lot of time from people who were waiting for it.
Are secret applications a surrender of territory?
Well, in the context of this victory plan, the secret annexes are also annexes that relate to the fact that we still have to ask our Western partners for something and they still have to give us something. Thank God, Volodymyr Zelenskyy did not talk about the surrender of territories, which is very good.
A good plan for the EU and the US. What will we do to win?
And Volodymyr Zelenskyy said nothing about this. I have already emphasized this. He hasn't said anything at all. He thinks that he does not need to announce what we are going to do to the country. It's just unbelievable. You know, you can be silent, say nothing. And then do it. This is a good strategy. So we are silent, the president is not talking about defense structures, and Pokrovsk is closed with three lines of defense. Then it's okay. But this is not being done. Why do we need a victory plan and public communication? Because people need to know why we have such a mess in the third year of the full-scale invasion. When will this mess stop? When will there be some kind of responsibility of commanders for absolutely huge losses, for losses in missing persons and POWs? When will there be proper application? When will those high-quality commanders who know how to fight be able to spread their positive experience across the entire front? And this is enough. Friends, we must understand that we have enough forces to stop the Russian offensive. I understand that this is the topic of a particular broadcast. I am really talking about the defense plan for Ukraine, and I will prepare material about it in the near future. So, if anyone has any comments or visions, I will be happy to hear your thoughts, and there will be a separate broadcast about this.
I frankly want to win, but in order to implement these plans that Mr. Zelenskyy said, at least 2 million people will die. Is this justified? Is there another way, in your opinion?
Modern high-tech warfare can be fought with much less losses than we have even now. As soon as we build a line of defense that the enemy cannot breach, then negotiations will be possible. Why don't we have negotiations now, why are all the words of Volodymyr Zelenskyy empty? Because while the enemy is advancing, no one talks to the weak, to those who are losing the war. They talk when there is a front line that the enemy cannot break through, because they will run out of troops if they try to breach it. That's when negotiations begin in wars.
Which cities can we lose in the near future? Toretsk, Selydove, Kupiansk?
I hope that we will not lose these cities, but of course, I said that the fighting is already going on in Toretsk itself, because the enemy has captured half of the city and is advancing further. And, of course, we can lose the very dangerously besieged Selydove from the flanks. The enemy is now fighting in Chasiv Yar. And, of course, they are trying to approach, but the fighting is already underway in these cities.
Does it make sense to recruit people to the AFU with a one-time payment of 20-30 thousand euros?
I believe that yes, it makes sense to give people such starting bonuses right away, but this can only be done if there is a mechanism to enforce the fulfillment of obligations. Because now we are simply falsifying reports, a large number of people are grabbed somewhere or recorded in the mobilization plan, mobilized, and they take their uniforms and things and immediately go home and go AWOL. If we don't have a mechanism for implementation, then why do it? And, besides, we need to calculate payments in such a way that all those who are already in the army should also receive no less financial assistance than those who come later. Because people who are already at war have been here for a long time. They are the ones who need financial assistance, first of all. And if there is help and support for the active army, then payments will work as a motivation for those who are new to the army. I just don't think that this mobilization is a panacea. Mobilization in any country in the world is not done exclusively on a voluntary basis. Let's look at democratic countries. Both Britain and the United States. A volunteer army starts wars, but then there is a forced mobilization of the entire human resource. And the country's leadership makes sure that people are not wasted, that losses are minimized. Those people who did not join the army voluntarily should still perform tasks according to their capabilities. That's why we need to look at the international practice. And I see no need to look for additional reserves of volunteer fighters somewhere else at any cost. All the volunteer fighters we had in Ukraine are already at war. The plan must work further. It was not only in Ukraine, it was in all democratic countries of the world during mass wars that require general mobilization. This is a common practice. So let's follow the general practice and not recreate the wheel. Everything has already been invented and used before us. Now, if we look at the tactics of organizing troops, friends, nothing has changed since the First World War. Infantry tactics, as they were developed around 1917, the use of troops, mortars, machine guns, assault groups, interaction with tanks, artillery and aviation, have not changed. This is the way it is. The basic principles remain the same. Yes, there are new tactical techniques, new high-tech weapons, yes, we need to fight with drones now, but when you are attacking or defending, you need ground forces. The principles of tactics remain the same.
Do you think the secret points of the plan include mobilization from the age of 18?
In fact, the president did not say this. In fact, on the contrary, he has repeatedly said that mobilization should be over 25 years old. I think this is a big mistake. Mobilization in all countries of the world during mass war, yes, it started with different age groups. In America, they had a mass mobilization army, and mobilization started at the age of 21. I also believe that mobilization should be from the age of 21. But it should be completely different, if we mobilize young people, we need a completely different procedure for training. We should not waste young people in the same way as people, volunteer fighters mobilized now, are being wasted. This is a real waste of human resources. And the life of every person, even if they are 70 years old, is just as important as the life of an 18-year-old. That's why my vision of this is that Zelenskyy doesn't discuss it at all, which is a big mistake. In my opinion, mobilization should really be planned from the age of 21, but the preparation of young people should be much longer. We need to start by preserving young people, preserving the country for these young people. Without the mobilization of young people from the age of 21, we have big problems in preserving the country and returning the occupied territories. Therefore, we need a mobilization program, we need a training program. Let's start by preparing young people for six months, a year. This will be high-quality training, as the Israeli army trains for almost a year. This is the right approach to young people. They can be in the rear for a long time, in reserve units. They don't have to be all at zero line at once. But there should be combat-ready and effective reserves of healthy people. Well-trained, well-prepared, well-organized. Therefore, unfortunately, all this is not discussed at all. Zelenskyy is not discussing the issue of mobilization, just populist statements. We will not kill the future, we will not conscript from the age of 25. It seems that when people die at the front when they are 26, people die when they are 46, this is not a problem for the future of the nation. But this is a disaster. We need to mobilize a large number of people to reduce the combat load on those heroes who are holding the front. And we need trained people, healthy trained people. Of course, they can't be trained the way they are now. These are related issues. We cannot send people to the front after this low-quality training in training centers in one month. This is about nothing at all. It's just about nothing. And it is a criminal act in the third year of the war to throw people into the infantry after they have spent a month in tents in some training center. This is absurd. People cannot be used in this way, but not only young people. No people can be used in this way at all.
Zelenskyy deliberately overestimates the support of his allies. Why?
We talked about this because Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for him, the main issue in his political career is not to take responsibility for any problems. He is always looking for enemies to pin responsibility on. His own, for fulfilling his presidential duties. President Zelenskyy is always looking for enemies. That is, he does not say anything about what he should do to change the country. He always says that someone is always interfering with him. Always some bad people. So the oligarchs were in his way, he said, I will adopt a law on oligarchs. It was adopted, but the list of oligarchs was never made public. So this law simply does not work. But in words, there was such a war with those oligarchs, so they wanted to limit them now. Well, they did reach an agreement, and there was nothing but empty talk. Similarly, now Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants to shift all the responsibility for the fact that he is not engaged in the defense of Ukraine, has no strategy, and does not draw any conclusions from our defeats, from the problems in the troops. And he wants to shift the responsibility for the problems in the war solely to the West. People are dying, missing, stupid orders are being given, defense lines have not been built, there is no proper use of troops and tactics. And this is not to us. All claims are to our Western partners. Let them give us more weapons. We have to demand, but there will be no miracle. The fact that our government and Zelenskyy constantly curse our Western partners, accusing them of giving nothing, although they have already provided tens of billions of dollars in weapons and direct budget funding, makes the country dependent on their funding. We have nothing, there are no changes. This struggle for points on the map, these observation posts without trenches, for which people are dying, is not the responsibility of our Western partners, it is the responsibility of the Ukrainian command. We are losing cities, it's not NATO generals who have to defend Myrnohrad, Pokrovsk, and Selydove. These are our troops, and they need to be organized. There is no talk about any of this, all the desire is to shift it back to some bad guy. That is, Zelenskyy is once again out of the loop. Here he is, sitting in his position, constantly inventing why he has nothing to do with anything. And here he has nothing to do, and here he has nothing to do. He is only for good things. When something good happens, he is there. He is not responsible for the problems and does not want to solve anything.
I am sorry to hear what I heard today. We have wasted a lot of time and expectations, hopes for something that does not really make any practical sense. But this needs to be discussed because Ukraine needs a real plan for victory. One that the army will believe in, first and foremost. Which will help our army to stop the offensive. So that these traders in negotiations, that is, traders in hopes and expectations, will start doing something. To do something concrete. We need to create a public opinion that will force the government to reform the fighting and reform the army. We need to destroy the enemy along the entire frontline, as we are destroying him in many areas where the entire Russian offensive is being shattered with huge losses. This should be the case on the entire front. And then there will be peace and negotiations. This is our plan for victory. To stop the Russian army and defeat their strike groups. Then, after that, peace is possible. If this does not happen, this talk will be just historical garbage. Waste paper. That's why, dear friends, I want to say, I believe that I know, I see, we have every opportunity to win. We have the people, we have the commanders, we have the fighters, we have the weapons with which we can win and change the situation at the front. But to do this, we need to start talking about real problems and solutions at every place without these delusions. We need public pressure on the government, on public opinion, because Zelenskyy implements only what is popular in society. He does not want to think for himself, he will not do anything, he will not make any changes. In order for us to be ahead of the enemy in changes, we need to put pressure on the government. In the near future, I will tell you my vision of what we need to do to plan for victory, to defeat the aggressor. Thank you for the broadcast and glory to Ukraine!
