Ukraine needs an urgent shift in strategy, says The Economist

Zelensky's plan disappointed American officials. According to many, the plan, instead of relying on a comprehensive strategy, is simply another request for more weapons and lifting restrictions on long-range missiles. However, the British weekly notes that "in fact, Ukraine needs something far more ambitious: an urgent change of course."

The Economist emphasizes that Ukraine's situation is deteriorating due to Russia's slow, steady advances in the east of the country, especially around the city of Pokrovsk. Although the Russians suffered significant losses during the fighting, "Ukraine is also struggling."

Additionally, there are other consequences of the war. The Russians regularly destroy Ukraine's power networks. With the approaching winter, Ukrainians will struggle with power outages lasting several hours. "The Economist" indicates that "people are tired of war."

The Ukrainian army is also fighting to mobilize among its citizens to train enough soldiers to at least hold the front line, not to mention regain lost territories. "There is a growing gap between the total victory many Ukrainians say they want and their willingness or ability to fight for it," writes the British weekly.

Fatigue is also evident outside Ukraine's borders. The article notes that the far right in Germany and France considers supporting Ukraine a waste of money.

The potential victory of Donald Trump in the upcoming elections also does not inspire optimism. Trump believes that he will quickly end the war because Russia, they are "afraid of him," and in Europe, they worry because what he says, he means "seriously."

"If Mr Zelensky continues to defy reality by insisting that Ukraine’s army can take back all the land Russia has stolen since 2014, he will drive away Ukraine’s backers and further divide Ukrainian society," writes "The Economist."

The article emphasizes that regardless of whether Trump wins in November, "the only hope of keeping American and European support and uniting Ukrainians is for a new approach that starts with leaders stating honestly what victory means." "The Economist" has long believed that Russia did not attack Ukraine for its territory but to prevent it from becoming a prosperous democracy oriented towards the West.

"Ukraine’s partners need to get Mr Zelensky to persuade his people that this remains the most important prize in this war. However much Mr Zelensky wants to drive Russia from all Ukraine, including Crimea, he does not have the men or arms to do it," we read.

"The Economist" continues that Western leaders must make the overarching war goal credible by ensuring that Ukraine has military potential and security guarantees. "This will require greater supplies of the weaponry Mr Zelensky is asking for. Ukraine needs long-range missiles that can hit military targets deep in Russia and air defenses to protect its infrastructure. Crucially, it also needs to make its own weapons."

The second guarantor of security would be inviting Ukraine to NATO. However, membership in the Alliance would be controversial and involve risks. Occupied territories would have to be excluded from the guarantees of Article 5.

"A firmer promise of NATO membership would help Mr Zelensky redefine victory; a credible war aim would deter Russia; NATO would benefit from Ukraine’s revamped arms industry. Forging a new victory plan asks a lot of Mr Zelensky and Western leaders. But if they demur, they will usher in Ukraine’s defeat. And that would be much worse," summarizes the British weekly.