Allies begin a new phase of pressure on Ukraine to negotiate the end of the war

“American catastrophe,” read the headline of the Ukrainian daily Pravda on September 26. Volodymyr Zelenskiy had returned from a trip to Washington with discouraging signs that Ukraine is increasingly unlikely to push back Russian forces on the battlefield. The Republicans have made it clear that their priority is for Kyiv to make concessions to end the war; President Joe Biden announced a new military aid package worth almost $8 billion, but did not provide the hoped-for permission for long-range missiles provided by the U.S. to be used against targets on Russian soil. The American press stated that the “plan for victory” with which Zelenskiy traveled had failed to convince the White House. At the United Nations General Assembly last week in New York, the wind also blew less in favor of Kyiv’s defense interests.

“Peace is closer than we might think,” Zelenskiy said on September 23 in an interview with ABC, on the eve of his U.S. tour. The Ukrainian president demanded that his allies agree on Kyiv’s “plan for victory” before the end of the year. This military proposal is designed to give Ukraine a final push in the war in order to arrive in a position of increased strength at a hypothetical peace negotiation with Moscow. Messages from Ukraine’s partners in September indicate that these talks should take place as soon as possible.

The Russian advance on the Donetsk front has been making steady progress since the summer, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine have not been able to reverse the situation. This week, Russian forces took control of the city of Vuhledar, besieged the municipality of Toretsk, and, most importantly, Pokrovsk, a key defensive city in the Donbas region. Added to this is the escalation of the Middle Eastern conflict, diverting the attention of the West.

The clock for Ukraine is ticking above all with the U.S. election and the inauguration of the next president in January. As the new NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, said in his first public address on October 1: “Ukraine likely would not exist as a country today without U.S. support.” Donald Trump humiliated Zelenskiy at every campaign rally he held while the Ukrainian leader was in the country. “Every time Zelenskiy comes to the United States he walks away with $100 billion, I think he’s the greatest salesman on Earth,” Trump said. He also claimed the Ukrainian president was campaigning for Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, and reiterated that if he is re-elected president, aid to Ukraine will end. Trump also said he had “very good relations” with both Zelenskiy and Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that his goal is for the two to come to an agreement.

This coincided with Zelenskiy being snubbed by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson over alleged Ukrainian involvement in the Democratic campaign and a decline in interest among U.S. legislators in what the Ukrainian president had to say, The New York Times explained.

Oleg Sahakyan, a Ukrainian political scientist and founder of the National Platform for Sustainability and Cohesion, summed up three factors that had hampered Zelenskiy’s trip to the United States at a conference in Kyiv on September 30: the election campaign; the war between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, which took center stage at the U.N.; and the disruptive figure of Trump.

Sahakyan said that the “plan for victory” presented by Zelenskiy in Washington, of which few details are known, is above all a political strategy, a coup. Members of the Biden administration told The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times that the document left them “indifferent.” The FT explained Tuesday that, in the talks held on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, possible concessions to end the war were constantly on the table in meetings with Ukrainian diplomats.

Of particular relevance were the words of German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at the U.N. on September 25, urging an end to the conflict. “We need an end to this war,” said Baerbock, because Russia must be prevented from destroying all of Ukraine. “Peace means that Ukraine’s existence as a free and independent country is guaranteed. It means security guarantees,” the minister added.

Zelenskiy’s plan includes demanding Ukraine’s entry into NATO within months. Finnish President Alexander Stubb said at the Helsinki Security Forum on September 27 that Ukraine’s accession to the Atlantic Alliance in such a short timeframe was unfeasible. Stubb believed that Ukraine would be able to join NATO quickly, but only after it was accepted as a member of the European Union.

Rutte’s visit to Kyiv

Rutte, who visited Kyiv for the first time as NATO Secretary General on Thursday, stressed that Ukraine’s future in the Atlantic Alliance “is closer than ever” and that the defense of Ukraine “is also the defense of NATO members.” Rutte did not go into details about when Kyiv’s accession to NATO might take place, or what alternatives there are to it.

The Ukrainian government reiterated this summer that it will be ready to join the EU by the end of 2025. This timetable caused a clash in September between Zelenskiy and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorksi, who warned the Ukrainian president that his expectations are unlikely to materialize. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry also angrily responded to Sirkorski when he suggested that a solution for the Crimean Peninsula, illegally annexed by Russia in 2014, is to turn it into a U.N. protectorate and to organize a referendum in 20 years’ time to decide which country it will form part of.

Czech President Petr Pavel also received a protest from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry when said in The New York Times on September 23 that Ukraine “will have to be realistic” about its goals: “The most probable outcome of the war will be that a part of Ukrainian territory will be under Russian occupation, temporarily,” he said.

The Ukrainian government also issued a statement of protest after the spokesman for the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nicolas Bideau, announced that his country was supporting the peace proposal led by China and Brazil. This initiative has been rejected by Zelenskiy because he considers it plays into Russian interests. Bideau even said he regretted the warlike messages that both Ukrainians and Russians expressed at the U.N. General Assembly. The spokesman’s statements have been particularly painful for Kyiv, given that Switzerland organized and supported the peace summit led by Zelenskiy last June.

Mykhailo Samus, director of the Ukrainian think tank New Geopolitics, told this newspaper that he has perceived a change among Ukraine’s allies, among whom there is more talk of “a pragmatic solution to the war.” Despite this, the alliance’s official position continues to be that the Ukrainian army has to continue fighting. The key, according to Samus, is for Biden to give his authorization to use long-range missiles against military targets in Russia. “This would put the Russian army’s operations on the ropes and provide space for negotiations.” Samus adds that it is essential that before the time comes to sit down with the Kremlin, Russia’s hegemony in Crimea must be weakened by destroying access to the peninsula: “Guaranteeing Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea is an existential question.”

In order for Ukraine to push back Russian forces on the battlefield, all the military aid Kyiv has received so far would need to be multiplied several times over. Zelenskiy can cling to the hope that a Harris victory at the polls represents. Sahakyan confirmed that the vice president’s discourse is even clearer in defending Ukrainian interests than Biden’s.

Harris spoke bluntly about peace proposals from some quarters in an appearance alongside Zelenskiy on September 27: “There are some in my country who would instead force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality, and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations,” the vice president said. “These proposals are the same as those of Putin and let us be clear, they are not proposals for peace. Instead, they are proposals for surrender, which is dangerous and unacceptable.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition