Ukraine's "victory plan", presented this week to NATO officials and both candidates (Trump and Harris) for the 2024 US presidential election, has been widely criticized as a non-starter specifically because it does not address the key obstacle facing their ability to stop Russia's steady strategic advance. That key obstacle is manpower, which Ukraine does not have.
The problem is not blatantly admitted, but implied by numerous officials with inside knowledge of the war. US politicians (Democrats and Neocons) have been pressuring Ukraine to lower the conscription age to 18-24 year old men, a move which the nation has tried to avoid. Why? Because the Ukrainians worry that if they do there will be no viable men left to start families and replenish the population after the war is over.
That's not a very optimistic appraisal of the situation on the front lines.
The height of Ukraine's successful push-back against Russian forces in 2022 just happened to coincide with the height of the foreign mercenary presence in the region, with tens-of-thousands of highly experienced contract soldiers from the US and Europe helping the Ukrainians counter the maneuver warfare tactics of the Russians. However, when the Russian tactics changed to attrition, the mercenary pipeline suddenly slowed to a trickle.
The mainstream media suggests that the reason the foreign fighters stopped showing up was because the "romance of the war" was gone. It is more likely that it's because western soldiers are rarely trained to fight under attrition warfare conditions, making death a far greater possibility. The point is, Ukraine no longer has a pool of foreign fighters to fall back on and their recruitment efforts a bearing little fruit.
Young men are conscripted or in some cases kidnapped by military police, thrown into vans, dropped off at training centers and then dumped on the front lines within a few weeks. Manpower is the key to war, and it's the one thing Ukraine has not received from NATO governments.
But if one examines Zelensky's victory plan it's as if someone somewhere must have promised him a fresh supply of NATO troops. In fact, Zelensky's only plan seems to be immediate NATO membership which would then, under NATO treaty, requires the deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine for mutual defense. In other words, the Ukrainian plan would facilitate WWIII.
Key elements of the plan include a formal invitation to join NATO, the lifting by allies of bans on long-range strikes with Western-supplied weapons deep into Russia, a refusal to trade Ukraine’s territories and sovereignty, and the continuation of the incursion into Russia's western Kursk region.
The Kremlin dismissed the plan with a spokesman saying Kyiv needed to "sober up". Indeed.
Russia is never going to willingly give up their territorial gains in the Donbas, especially when their troop levels are higher than ever and they are taking towns at the fastest pace since the beginning of the war. The refusal to negotiate on territory makes peace impossible and requires a vast surge in troop strength for Kyiv to have any chance of a new offensive.
Ukraine is reportedly losing their gains in the Kursk region with rumors of a full retreat now swirling. This claim seems to be supported by Ukraine's evacuation of civilians from the Sumy region just across the border from Kursk. Once again, the manpower simply doesn't exist to make any of Zelensky's goals possible.
The real question is, is Ukraine worth it? According to surveys in the US and Europe the majority of the public says "no." They will not support troops on the ground in Ukraine, nor do they want to risk WWIII with Russia. Because of this fact, it behooves Zelensky and his NATO backers to set aside any notions of a victory plan and start considering the wisdom of a peace plan.