On Nov. 29, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told Sky News that he was willing to cede territory to Russia to end the war if NATO agreed to terms.

Kyiv’s Western backers are concerned about growing public discontent with Zelensky, whose public trust among Ukrainians has declined over the last year. The problem is that Zelensky fired the person Ukrainians appear to trust the most, former commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhny — some say because Zaluzhny was becoming too popular.

It is not just the protracted nature of the two-plus-year conflict that is a concern; it is also the current leadership’s inability to make material gains in resolving it. This has become especially acute since the Ukrainian president’s term in office expired last May — with no announcement about any forthcoming elections.

U.S. and top European officials have, for some time, been in discussions with Kyiv about possible peace negotiations with Moscow. Moreover, Stephen Bryen, former deputy undersecretary of Defense and a leading expert in security strategy says, “There is a growing consensus” that Western leaders want to replace Zelensky.

The U.S. currently provides not only military hardware, advisors and other forms of support, but also financial means to fund the salaries of government officials as well as those of the Ukrainian military, including money for pensions. Given the huge investment of more than $100 billion in Zelensky in particular and Ukraine in general, why would the U.S. be willing to jettison Zelensky (or agree to negotiate) two years into the conflict?

A primary reason is trust. Zelensky did not adhere to Washington’s carefully crafted plan for Ukraine’s counteroffensive. The White House leaked its concerns to lay the groundwork to justify replacing the Ukrainian president.

The Ukrainian president, however, has a more serious problem than the botched offensive. There is a growing perception that Ukraine will lose the war.

Recently, Kyiv has mounted what has been described as a “fool’s errand” — a last-ditch, desperate incursion into Kursk to draw Russian troops from the Donbas in the hope of staving off further deterioration there and in the morale of its soldiers and population. To make matters worse, the situation on the front lines in the Donbas continues to deteriorate with Kyiv and Russia taking heavy losses.

Russia’s advance on the key city of Pokrovsk — a city of substantial strategic value — has only accelerated. The loss of Pokrovsk would have a cascading effect, leading to a broader collapse of Ukrainian defenses in the Donetsk region, thereby altering the course of the conflict.

Futility can often be seen through events that distract from the issues. In September, over half of Kyiv’s ministers were dismissed. The goal apparently was to concentrate power into the president’s hands and shift all the accumulated public discontent onto the current prime minister and his cabinet — in other words — away from Zelensky.

Shifting blame is as meaningless as last-minute “reshuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic.”

Ukraine lacks the means to gain the upper hand against Russia and will “lose the war” if the situation continues as it is, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba has told the Financial Times, adding that U.S. President Joe Biden was too fearful of nuclear war to give Kyiv the weapons it would need to win.

Kuleba’s comments came after the U.S. and France gave Ukraine permission to use their long-range missiles to strike internationally recognized Russian territory. Washington previously admitted that these long-range missiles would not be a game changer.

Continuous and escalating pressure is being exerted on Zelensky by European and other Western countries to alter his stance on the ongoing war and to sit down at the negotiation table with Vladimir Putin to end the conflict.

A noteworthy analysis from ABC News introduces the factor of President-elect Donald Trump, who is expected to take office on Jan. 20.

Should negotiations (currently being pressed by Zelensky’s backers) not occur, Ukraine will inevitably fail militarily, severely impairing the perception of NATO’s deterrent capabilities in the region and perhaps beyond.

The Ukrainian president is on record as being against any negotiation with Russia until Russian forces withdraw from Ukraine. Moreover, Zelensky refuses to call for elections for fear of losing control and thus power.

The options remaining for the U.S. and its allies are daunting. While several possibilities remain to stop the conflict, Trump’s newly appointed Ukraine envoy, former Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has put forward a plan to end the war.

Future U.S. aid — likely given as a loan — will be conditioned on Ukraine negotiating with Russia, and the U.S. will arm Ukraine to the extent it can defend itself.

The frontlines would be frozen by a ceasefire, and a demilitarized zone imposed. For agreeing to this, Russia would get limited sanctions relief, and full relief only when a peace deal is signed.

A levy on Russian energy exports would partially pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine would not be asked to give up on reclaiming occupied territory, but it would agree to pursue it through diplomacy alone. Kellogg concedes “This would require a future diplomatic breakthrough which probably will not occur before Putin leaves office.”

Joining NATO is not a realistic option — at least in the current political milieu (irrespective of the political rhetoric from former NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg).

However, a shift appears to have occurred. Zelensky said in November his country could give up land temporarily in exchange for a “NATO umbrella” over the territory Ukraine still holds.

He added that after a ceasefire was agreed, Kyiv could “diplomatically” negotiate the return of the territory in the east that is currently under Russian control.

The comments represent a considerable shift in Zelensky’s position. And it comes as Donald Trump prepares to take office with a promise to end the war on “day one.” Barring any last-minute sabotage from the West (again), it appears the Ukrainian president might have just “blinked.”

AfriPrime App link:  FREE to download...

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

Zelensky admits troops cannot retake Donetsk as Kyiv unveils Trident laser weapon

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has admitted that the country’s military are not capable of recovering the territory currently occupied by Russia without diplomatic pressure from Kyiv’s allies.

Speaking to French newspaper Le Parisien, Mr Zelensky said: “We cannot give up our territories. The Ukrainian constitution forbids us to do so. [But] we do not have the strength to recover them.

“We can only count on diplomatic pressure from the international community to force Putin to sit down at the negotiating table.”

It comes as Ukraine has unveiled a laser weapon capable of downing drones from more than a mile away in a bid to combat Russian aerial attacks.

Colonel Vadym Sukharevsky, the commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, said the laser would be capable of downing aircraft at distances of more than 2km.

“It really works; it really exists,” he said at the Europe Defence Industry conference,  adding that efforts are underway to scale up its capabilities.

The announcement follows the UK introducing a cutting-edge ‘Trident’ laser weapon earlier this year. They said at the time they would be sharing its prototypes with Ukraine.

Key Points

• Russia detains man who carried out Kirillov’s assassination

• ‘Several hundred’ North Korean troops killed and wounded in Ukraine war

• Putin’s troops intensify assaults in Kursk and eastern front

• Ukrainian leadership faces imminent revenge, says Putin aide

• Zelensky says foreign peacekeepers idea could be raised today

AfriPrime App link:  FREE to download...

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT