The author is a researcher at the TRT World Research Centre, based in Istanbul, Türkiye.

ISTANBUL

As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy presents his "victory plan" at the UN General Assembly and meets with US leaders, the stakes surrounding Ukraine’s war with Russia are higher than ever. The plan, which outlines a path toward peace, is being unveiled amid ongoing military actions and a shifting international landscape. But is Zelenskyy’s initiative a real step toward peace, or a strategic move to maintain Western support as the war grinds on?

While the full details of the "victory plan" have not been officially disclosed, sources suggest that it contains critical elements: NATO-like security guarantees for Ukraine, advanced military support from Western allies, and international financial aid to rebuild the war-ravaged nation. Some US officials have reportedly expressed skepticism, deeming it more symbolic than game-changing and lack of comprehensive strategy. By laying out this plan to a diverse set of stakeholders, Zelenskyy aims to secure bipartisan US backing, especially ahead of the 2024 election. Yet his efforts coincide with shifting public sentiment in both Ukraine and the US, raising questions about long-term political and public support for his strategy.

Ukraine’s diplomatic and military tightrope

Zelenskyy’s plan illustrates the delicate balancing act between diplomacy and military action. The Kursk offensive and targeted drone strikes deep into Russian territory are more than tactical maneuvers; they are part of a broader strategy to gain leverage at the negotiating table. By demonstrating Ukraine’s resilience and offensive capabilities, Zelenskyy aims not just to bolster national morale but to compel Russia into serious negotiations from a position of weakness.

Zelenskyy’s dual approach of combining military escalation with diplomacy raises doubts about whether the two can truly coexist. Critics argue that intensifying attacks may hinder negotiations by further entrenching both sides. Western allies, particularly the Biden administration, are cautious, fearing that expanding the war could provoke Russian escalation and potentially drag NATO into the conflict. This concern is reflected in the US hesitation to supply long-range missiles like Storm Shadow and ATACM, which could trigger an unpredictable Russian response. While the UK has advocated stronger support, US officials fear that deploying these systems, reliant on Western satellite and military coordination, could provoke Moscow’s response.

In the US, concerns about the scale of aid and the prioritization of domestic issues over foreign entanglements are growing. Public opinion has turned into a critical battlefield, with Zelenskyy needing to secure continued military and financial support while addressing the rising disillusionment that comes with a prolonged, costly conflict.

US politics: A key battlefield

Zelenskyy’s outreach to US presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump highlights just how deeply the war’s trajectory is intertwined with American political dynamics. With the US serving as Ukraine’s primary source of military aid, maintaining bipartisan support is not just important – it’s essential for Ukraine’s survival. Zelenskyy knows that ensuring Ukraine’s cause remains a priority across party lines, especially amid the bitter divisions of the 2024 election, and that US assistance is key to keeping vital assistance flowing, regardless of who wins the White House.

However, the political landscape in the US is shifting. On Sept. 25, presidential candidate Trump criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, accusing him of "refusing to make a deal" in the ongoing conflict with Russia, marking Trump's most direct critique of Zelenskyy's approach to the war so far. A growing faction within the Republican Party follows Trump’s cues, calling for a reduction in aid to Kyiv, arguing that American domestic issues should take precedence.

Should a Republican administration take the reins of power next, Zelenskyy would undeniably face new challenges as decreased US support would oblige Ukraine to make concessions at the negotiating table – concessions that could compromise the country’s territorial integrity and long-term security.

This urgency is highlighted by Zelenskyy's efforts to engage both Democrats and Republicans, though he has found less success with the latter. Without consistent US aid, Ukraine's military resistance against Russian advances would falter. As the US election approaches, Zelenskyy is navigating a high-stakes diplomatic landscape, knowing that the outcome may shape the war's future and Ukraine's path to peace.

The road ahead: Peace built on diplomacy

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive complicates the diplomatic narrative. Meanwhile, Russian officials have outright refused participation in a second peace summit planned for later this year, signaling that peace remains elusive. The real peace plan will only succeed if both Ukraine and Russia commit to genuine dialogue – currently a distant prospect. Zelenskyy’s strategy balances military pressure with diplomatic outreach, but its success hinges on international unity and continued US support, raising questions about its viability.

Therefore, as the conflict drags on, global leaders must place diplomacy at the forefront – not only to secure Ukraine's future but also to stabilize the broader international order at risk. While there is still time for meaningful diplomatic efforts, a credible mediator is essential to bring opposing sides to the table. Given its earlier breakthroughs in mediation, negotiating the grain deal and facilitating prisoner exchanges, Türkiye could emerge as the ideal player to offer an off-ramp for peace. As Zelenskyy navigates this complex landscape, the world watches closely, hopeful that his rhetoric for peace can be transformed into a tangible reality with the right diplomatic support.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.