‘Kyiv and the West may have different views on victory,’ – The Times columnist says

Despite President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ‘victory plan,’ the views on victory may differ between Kyiv and the West.”

This is reported by The Times columnist Mark Galeotti.

“It is unclear whether Ukraine’s allies truly believe that the enemy can be completely driven out,” the article states.

The author describes two main scenarios for Ukraine at the moment: either Kyiv agrees to Russian control over the captured territories, or the war becomes an ‘eternal’ conflict of attrition.

In the West, it’s believed that one of the goals of Zelensky’s plan is to ‘keep allies engaged.’

“I don’t know if this will lead to victory over the Russians, but the plan is likely designed to keep us in line,” an unnamed German diplomat told the author of the article.

At the same time, there is “significant and widespread Ukrainian fatigue, especially in Europe,” noted the columnist.

“While some countries, like Poland and the United Kingdom, remain firmly committed to supporting Ukraine, in other countries, there is a growing sense that perhaps it’s time to end the war, even if that means creating an ‘ugly peace,'” Galeotti writes.

This peace could mean that Ukraine might lose part of its territories.

“There is significant skepticism even among Ukraine’s most outspoken allies about Kyiv’s ability to regain all occupied territories through military means. Even a recognized ‘hawk’ from a Polish think tank admitted to me, ‘Ukraine’s borders have often changed over time; the real struggle now is to ensure that the changes in Ukraine’s borders are as minimal as possible in the future,'” the author writes.

If Ukraine continues to reject any territorial losses, “then this could turn into a kind of endless war.”

“At a certain point, there will be a degree of exhaustion, and the war will likely oscillate between episodes of intense fighting and temporary ceasefires, but it won’t end,” Galeotti suggests.

And if neither side can deliver a knockout blow, “for some, the real victory will be the end of the killings and the emergence of a sovereign, prosperous, and pro-Western Ukraine, even if it means giving up the contested and largely destroyed territories in the southeast.”

According to the author, “the first step toward this would probably be a ceasefire.” But “there are no signs that Zelensky is thinking in these terms,” as it would threaten the political position of Ukraine’s president.

“As one Ukrainian official admitted: ‘Zelensky knows that nationalists never truly loved him and would do everything possible to overthrow him if he started talking about any concessions,'” Galeotti writes.

He also notes that there is “little real enthusiasm within NATO to admit Ukraine.” However, the author believes there is one exception.

“NATO members might be forced to extend this invitation (to join the Alliance) to Kyiv to avoid an even more unpleasant outcome: if Ukraine decides that it needs its own nuclear capability as a last guarantor of its security,” the article states.