Is Zelenskyy Losing Influence?

Thomas Fazi makes the following observation:

But Zelenskyy isn’t just facing criticism over the way forward for Ukraine; some are now saying that the entire strategy was botched from the start. Oleksii Arestovych, Zelenskyy’s former presidential advisor now turned critic, recently wrote that “the war could have ended with the Istanbul agreements, and a couple hundred thousand people would still be alive”, referring to a round of peace talks that took place in March and early April 2022, mediated by Turkey.

On that occasion, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators had reached a tentative agreement on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement — whereby Russia had agreed to withdraw troops along the lines prior to February 24, 2022 in exchange for Ukraine’s neutrality — but the deal was allegedly blocked by Boris Johnson and representatives of the American State Department and the Pentagon. Even David Arakhamia, the parliamentary leader of Zelenskyy’s own Servant of the People party who led the Ukrainian delegation in peace talks with Moscow, recently claimed that Russia was “ready to end the war if we accept neutrality”, but that the talks ultimately collapsed for several reasons — including Johnson’s visit to Kyiv informing Ukrainian officials that they should continue fighting.

You will note that is not unlike what I have been arguing here for some time. However, Mr. Zelenskyy is holding fast to his “maximalist” objectives. Mr. Fazi concludes:

From the US perspective, a democratic regime change in Ukraine would arguably be the preferable solution; but, as noted, elections aren’t on the table at the moment. This doesn’t mean that change isn’t coming, though; if anything, it only heightens the risk of Zelensky’s opponents — inside and outside of the country — trying to get rid of him by other means. Indeed, Zelenskyy himself recently expressed concern that a new Maidan-type coup is being plotted in Ukraine — though he accused Russia, not local enemies, of being behind these plans. Regardless of how credible one believes this scenario to be, it speaks to Zelenskyy’s changing status on the world stage: as Western countries, and important segments of the Ukrainian establishment, look for an exit strategy, Zelenskyy is no longer seen as an asset — but as a liability.

6 comments… add one
  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    One must put things in perspective.

    A recent poll in Ukraine said the percentage of Ukrainians ready to make territorial concessions to Russia to end the war has almost doubled in the past year…. which sounds earth shaking until you read from “10%” to “19%”.

    The truth is Zelensky’s position is the position held by the vast majority of Ukrainians.

    The other topic is what exactly was on the table during negotiations in the first two months of the war. If it is true the Russians offered to go to the lines of 2014-Feb 21, 2022 with Ukrainian neutrality that was Finlandish in character as the price, that makes it impossibly hard for negotiations.

    How can Zelensky go to his people after sending 100,000 or more men to their deaths or grievous injury, and tell them they need to settle for less then what the Russians offered in first 2 months of the war? He would be killed within a week if that was the case, for gambling on a reckless scale.

    And there’s risk for the US and UK if Zelensky has to settle. Can you imagine the blowback if Zelensky writes the US / UK convinced him to pursue a war with Russia, saying they would provide the money and resources to win no matter the cost…. and then failed to deliver on an epic scale. The backstab or primrose path narrative would shadow US foreign policy for a generation.

    Like it or not, if the Russians were willing to put settle on those terms in March 2022, then I think the US is stuck with Ukraine’s maximalist objective for a generation or more.

  • steve Link

    That Russia offered to settle if they got to keep the territory they had stolen is hardly surprising. As noted by CO that has been unpopular with the people of Ukraine. My guess is that ukraine eventually wears down and has to give up some territory but they arent there yet. Then Putin can start nibbling at the Baltics.

    Steve

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    In the latest news, the Kyiv Independent reported Zelensky as saying the military proposes to mobilize 500,000 in 2024.

    https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-military-proposes-to-mobilize-450-500-new-soldiers/

    Pro-Ukrainian influencers report that 250,000 are needed to replace those KIA, WIA and to rotate out those on the front lines for 2 years. Meanwhile another 250,000 are new forces to conduct offensives in 2024.

    There are a few takeaways.

    One, despite all the recent chatter; Ukraine’s goals haven’t changed. Second, despite the reporting in DC over difficulties in Ukraine aid, Zelensky and Ukraine’s army wouldn’t plan to have 250,000 men for offensives if DC didn’t promise a huge set of weapons very soon.
    Third, the numbers suggest Ukraine’s military concluded a main shortcoming to 2023 offensives was they didn’t attack with enough troops. Lastly, I think those numbers suggest that Ukrainian casualties are much higher then Russia’s.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Another estimate of Ukrainian casualties — associated with David Goldman, a war skeptic but the data and methodology used is all public.

    https://asiatimes.com/2023/12/exclusive-150000-ukraine-soldiers-killed-in-action-through-october/

  • The killed and wounded in that article line up pretty well with the numbers reported in major media outlets. I don’t know whether that’s because that’s real or an artifact.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Which ones, Russian, Ukrainian, or both?

    From what I see; there hasn’t been a lot of disagreement on Russian casualties, whether from pro-Russian, anti-Russian or pro-Ukrainian sources. The disagreements have been on Ukrainian casualties.

Leave a Comment