zelensky went to the united states with the "victory plan": it was revealed that he would apply for lightning accession to the united states and push the west to lift the ban on long-range weapons
2024-09-23
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
"we have arrived in the united states. the main purpose is to strengthen ukraine and protect our people... the most effective help is determination. the plan for victory in ukraine will be on the table of all our allies."
on september 22, local time, ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky posted on the social platform "x" that he had arrived in the united states. zelensky plans to win more support for ukraine during this visit, explain ukraine's "victory plan" to its allies, and urge western countries to lift restrictions on ukraine's use of western weapons to strike deep into russian territorial targets. the global times quoted afp on the 23rd as saying that kiev has been pressuring the west on this issue for weeks.
starting from the 23rd, zelensky will deliver several speeches at the united nations general assembly in new york. he is expected to hold talks with us president biden and vice president and democratic presidential candidate harris on the 26th. the meeting time with republican presidential candidate trump has not yet been confirmed.
although zelensky has not yet announced the specific content of the "victory plan", the kyiv independent reported on the 22nd that according to the information obtained by the newspaper, the plan may include ukraine's application to join nato "in months rather than years". bloomberg quoted sources as saying that in addition to applying for formal "accession", the plan also includes ukraine's "clear path" to join the european union and requires the west to commit to a continued supply of advanced weapons. in an exclusive interview published by the new yorker magazine on the 22nd, zelensky said that if biden does not support this plan, "i can't force him to accept it, i can only continue to explain."
on september 22, 2024, local time, in scranton, pennsylvania, u.s., ukrainian president zelensky visited a local ammunition arsenal. visual china photo
after russian president vladimir putin signaled that the russian-ukrainian conflict would undergo a "qualitative change", the united kingdom, the united states and other countries recently postponed making a decision on whether to lift restrictions on the use of western weapons to strike russian territory against ukraine. on the 22nd, biden reiterated in an interview that no decision has been made on "lifting the ban" on ukraine. british foreign secretary lamy said on the same day that "difficult negotiations" with the white house on allowing ukraine to use british "storm shadow" missiles in russia are still ongoing, and said that now is a time for ukraine's allies to "show courage and guts."
as the russian-ukrainian conflict is about to enter its third autumn and winter, can zelensky's visit to the united states win the west's "lifting of the ban" on weapons? what kind of response might russia make?
will the us and uk "acquiesce"?
after arriving in the united states, zelensky chose the army ammunition plant in scranton, pennsylvania, biden's hometown, as his first destination. according to the associated press, the plant is one of the few factories in the united states that produces 155mm caliber artillery shells that the ukrainian army urgently needs, and it has increased production over the past year. so far, the ukrainian army has received more than 3 million such ammunition from the united states. u.s. democratic congressman matt cartwright, who participated in the visit to the factory, said that zelensky's message at the factory was very simple: "thank you. we need more."
the visit to the scranton army ammunition plant is only the prelude to zelensky's visit to the united states. his main itinerary will be a speech at the united nations in the next few days and a meeting with us leaders to seek further "relaxation" of restrictions on ukraine's use of western weapons to attack russian territory.
earlier, there were reports that the west has not yet reached an agreement on supporting negotiations or increasing military aid to ukraine, but it has begun to face increasing pressure. nato secretary-general stoltenberg and nato defense ministers have called for "lifting the ban." on september 19, the european parliament passed a non-binding resolution with 425 votes in favor, 131 votes against, and 63 abstentions, requiring eu countries to lift restrictions on ukraine's use of western long-range weapon systems to strike russian targets deep inside the country.
just before zelensky's visit to the united states, following the attack on a large missile ammunition depot in tver oblast on the 18th, the ukrainian army announced on the 21st that it would launch another attack on two russian ammunition depots, including the tikhoretsk ammunition depot in the krasnodar territory, which the ukrainian army called "one of the three largest ammunition depots in russia and a key storage facility for the logistics system." zelensky then praised the action and once again put pressure on the west. he stressed that the success of the attack was "thanks to our capabilities and our weapons," rather than relying on "the means that our partners can provide to accelerate the end of the war by destroying russia's offensive potential."
at present, it is considered the main demand of ukraine to seek permission from the united states and britain to use the army tactical missile system (atacms) and the storm shadow missile to carry out strikes deep into russian territory. the british newspaper the times recently published an article saying that this decision may not be announced publicly. the report quoted a western diplomat as saying that the decision will be made jointly by the united states and britain. however, the key problem facing western countries in this situation is that they do not know where russia's red line is. the diplomat also claimed that the threat level of russia has "never been so high."
the risk of escalating conflict may not be the only reason why western countries find it difficult to make a decision on "lifting the ban". some analysts believe that if ukraine eventually obtains the "lifting of the ban" from the united states, britain and other countries, it will bring huge political dividends, but the battlefield dividends are not clear. according to cnn on the 22nd, us intelligence agencies believe that 90% of russian aircraft that launch deadly glide bombs are more than 300 kilometers away from ukrainian-controlled areas and are therefore not within the range of atacms. another us official said that the russian military has recently moved aircraft from two bases near the border to areas further east.
george barros from the institute for the study of war in the united states believes that prompting russia to move its aircraft away from the border may reduce the number of bombing missions carried out by russian aircraft. in addition, if the ukrainian army can use atacms to strike russian troops, weapons and equipment, and logistics lines within a range of 300 kilometers, it will provide support for ukrainian drones and ground operations, and force the russian army to assess the risks of transporting a large number of troops and equipment into ukraine for the first time. according to barros' research, russia still has at least 200 targets, including corps, fuel depots, and ammunition depots, within the range of atacms, including the headquarters of the russian southern military district in rostov.
despite the risk of escalation and uncertainty about the impact on the war situation, the times reported that the united states and britain may "acquiesce" to ukraine's use of british "storm shadow" missiles to attack military facilities in russia. sources revealed that this decision may be announced during the un general assembly this week, but it will not be made public to prevent the russian army from preparing in advance for a possible attack by the ukrainian army.
earlier, the new york times published an article on september 12, saying that european officials said biden seemed to be about to clear the way for ukraine to launch long-range western weapons deep into russian territory, provided that the ukrainian army did not use weapons provided by the united states. cnn pointed out that both the atacms and the storm shadow missiles were confirmed by the united states and britain only after they were actually put into use. almost exactly one year ago, biden decided to provide ukraine with atacms after meeting with zelensky in the united states.
options other than the “nuclear button”?
as the united states, britain and other countries debate whether to lift the ban on using western weapons to strike russian territorial targets in ukraine, russia has repeatedly warned the west about the relevant signals recently released. putin recently emphasized that if the west "lifts the ban" on ukraine, it means "going to war with russia." against the backdrop of the intensifying confrontation with the west, calls for revising nuclear doctrines and resuming nuclear testing are also increasing in russia.
some outside analysts believe that the frequent warnings issued by russia recently may indicate that russia intends to use nuclear weapons. according to reports from russia today (rt), newsweek and other media on the 22nd, russian foreign minister lavrov made the latest response to this issue in an interview with sky news arabia. lavrov said that russia has no intention of provoking a nuclear war, and believed that it was "inappropriate" for russia's warnings about escalating conflicts to be interpreted as an intention to use nuclear weapons. although russia does have weapons that can "bring serious consequences" to the united states and its western allies, it does not want to use these weapons.
"we talk about red lines in the hope that our assessments and statements will be heard by smart decision-makers. it is inappropriate to claim that if someone does not do what we ask tomorrow, we will press the 'red button'." lavrov also added that he believed western decision-makers understood this because "no one wants a nuclear war." but he also accused western officials of having a "childlike mentality playing with matches" and warned that russian nuclear weapons are already in a "full combat readiness state."
stefanovich, a researcher at the primakov institute of world economy and international relations of the russian academy of sciences, said in an interview with the paper (www.thepaper.cn) that it is wrong for the west to continue to ignore russia's warnings about the possible escalation of the situation and think that it is bluffing. there is no reasonable reason to use nuclear weapons in ukraine at present, but if tensions between russia and nato intensify, the situation may escalate to the nuclear level.
the washington post published an article on the 22nd saying that within the kremlin, more and more people are aware that the repeated use of nuclear deterrence has begun to lose its power and moscow's red line has been constantly crossed. analysts and officials close to senior russian diplomats said that putin would only consider taking nuclear measures or directly attacking nato territory when he believes that russia's existence is threatened and there is no other way out. at present, putin is looking for a more subtle and limited countermeasure to deal with the west's possible "lifting of the ban" decision.
for putin, nuclear weapons are the worst option. rajan menon, an american political scientist, professor emeritus of political science at the city college of new york, and senior fellow at the saltzman institute of war and peace studies at columbia university, once told the paper that unlike some russian officials who frequently make nuclear deterrence statements, putin has always been cautious in his words and deeds. "he understands that using nuclear weapons against ukraine could trigger a chain of uncontrollable events, and the reaction of the international community would be completely negative."
an unnamed russian scholar also told the washington post that the nuclear option is the "least likely" option, not only because it would lead to dissatisfaction among russia's partners in the global south, but also because it is not very effective from a military perspective. "all these discussions about nuclear thresholds over-exaggerate the threat of such escalation and underestimate the possibility of alternative options. because the west has a global military infrastructure...there are many vulnerabilities that can be found."
in addition to the "nuclear button", how can russia respond? sergei markov, a political analyst with ties to the kremlin, said that the russian military top brass is increasingly aware that "at some point we have to escalate." possible responses include closing the british embassy in moscow and attacking air bases in poland and romania where ukraine deploys f-16 fighter jets.
yevgeny fedorov, a russian military and political expert, also wrote on the military review website that if western missiles really penetrate deep into russian territory, the russian military and political leadership should respond in an "asymmetric" way, that is, not targeting ukraine. he listed possible responses, including: attacking the us communication cables laid on the atlantic ocean to force the us and europe to "step out of their comfort zone" and affect the efficiency and availability of ukrainian intelligence information; conducting large-scale cyber attacks on western infrastructure; conducting nuclear tests in the arctic or neutral waters to show russia's firm position; and holding nuclear exercises to soften the us position.
the paper reporter hou danwei
(this article is from the paper. for more original information, please download the "the paper" app)
