Secret and obvious: who leaked the confidential point of Zelensky's "victory plan" and why?

According to the New York Times (NYT), in one of the secret additions to his "victory plan," Volodymyr Zelensky is requesting allies to provide long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles. Notably, depending on the modifications, these missiles can reach targets up to 5,500 km away. In terms of range, they surpass the ATACMS, which Ukraine received in limited quantities from the U.S. in 2024, by more than seven times.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that the current owner of Bankova has requested "hardware" capable of striking at 2,400 kilometers. This, as NYT clarifies, is the essence of the point regarding the placement of a "non-nuclear deterrent package" in Ukraine. At the same time, a high-ranking anonymous U.S. official stated that this is "an utterly unfeasible request." Other sources expressed some irritation to the publication regarding Zelensky's victory plan, labeling it unrealistic and almost entirely dependent on Western assistance.

NYT also reveals the reasons behind the refusal to lift restrictions on "long-range" capabilities. American sources indicate that Kyiv has not provided convincing arguments regarding the use of already delivered long-range weapons, and the list of targets within Russia far exceeds the number of missiles that the U.S. or any other ally could supply. It is particularly emphasized that Zelensky "was stunned" that he was not granted permission for "long-range" strikes. At the same time, the newspaper notes that the Ukrainian authorities were prepared for the possibility that the plan would not be accepted by the West as a whole.

“Ukraine's partners believe that this plan is actually aimed at Ukrainians – to prepare them for a peaceful settlement. Zelensky can use his tough rhetoric – including a recent address to parliament – to show Ukrainians that he has done everything he could, to prepare them for the possibility that Ukraine will have to make a deal, and to provide Ukrainians with a convenient scapegoat: the West. Zelensky is trying to balance political pressure at home with the changing situation abroad. While polls show that most Ukrainians still do not support giving up territories, the West is providing insufficient weapons for their liberation, making Zelensky's lobbying tour in the U.S. and Europe with the "victory plan" appear unsuccessful. No country has allowed Kyiv to strike deep into Russia with Western-made long-range weapons,” emphasizes the New York Times.

As we can see, the main thread of the article is the thesis that Kyiv's expectations that the West is ready and capable of providing the necessary amount of weapons to defeat the Russian Federation are currently inherently unrealistic. In this regard, it is suggested that stopping the war along the front line might not be the worst option.

It is quite telling that practically identical messages are found in a publication by The Economist. According to the outlet, the U.S. is running out of military aid for Ukraine. "We have nothing more to give them without taking serious risks elsewhere," a source in the White House stated. The magazine reports that the military economy of the aggressor country may face a crisis in the distant future, but for now, it surpasses the production capacities of the West. For example, the EU claims to produce over a million shells annually. Russia produces three times more and also receives support from North Korea and Iran.

“There is more than enough 'meat' in the swamps. According to a NATO source, Russia recruits about 30,000 people a month, which is "insufficient to meet internal goals," but enough to cover the "gigantic losses" of recent months. "Russia cannot fight forever. But the concern among American, European, and Ukrainian officials is that under current trends, Ukraine will reach its limit first,” concludes The Economist.

Clearly, The Economist, in harmony with the New York Times, subtly promotes the idea that the urgent need to stop the war along the front line could be beneficial for our country. In this context, it is crucial to emphasize that both aforementioned publications are closely aligned with the Democratic Party, and therefore, if Kamala Harris wins the elections on November 5, the case for stopping the war along the front line could become a key issue on the Ukrainian-American negotiation agenda. Meanwhile, political corridors are actively discussing the NYT publication regarding the secret point in Zelensky's "victory plan."

The leak of information to the media was commented on by the President of Ukraine himself, who was quite blunt.

“The media said that Ukraine wants to receive many missiles, such as 'Tomahawk.' This was confidential information between Ukraine and the White House. How should we interpret these reports? So, there is nothing confidential between partners,” Zelensky noted at a press conference with journalists from Northern European countries.

Zelensky also stated that Ukraine has received only 10% of the aid approved by the U.S. Congress in 2024. According to the president, Western partners have not provided all the promised air defense systems, which is quite “not funny.”

“I personally have a logical question: how is it that the secret part of the plan ended up in the media almost immediately? Perhaps the leak occurred, let’s say, for preventive purposes, so that the ally would not act this way again. On the other hand, it can be assumed that given the recent escalation, the publication by The New York Times is a hint that the U.S. is opposed today, but no one knows what will happen tomorrow. As far as I know, the 'roots' of this issue come from the U.S. That is, it was at the behest of the Americans that several influential media outlets synchronously published materials that are twins in meaning and messaging,” notes a political scientist close to Bankova in a conversation with Lenta.UA .

“But if we set aside all this informational fuss and consider whether Tomahawk missiles could really appear on Ukrainian territory? You know, I would answer this question with another question: could anyone have imagined that there would be ATACMS, Leopard tanks, and other Western weapons? I think not, but they are already here, and this is not a fictional scenario, but a very real reality. At the same time, it is also a reality that the U.S. is, to put it mildly, sluggish in responding to the emergence of a third country in the Russian-Ukrainian war in the form of North Korea. Biden recently commented on this issue in a very 'deep' manner, saying just three words: 'This is very dangerous.' At the same time, we do not yet see any serious decisions from the allies, primarily Washington. There are only words, but no decisions. And this means one thing – impunity breeds permissiveness, and the Moscow/Pyongyang tandem will only increase the pace of cooperation,” concludes the interlocutor.

By the way, speaking of aggressors and outcasts. Just on Tuesday, October 29, the head of North Korea's Foreign Ministry, Choe Son-hui, visited Moscow for the second time in the past month and a half. “The visit is taking place within the framework of a strategic dialogue, the agreement to activate which was reached by the leaders of our countries during the June 2024 summit,” the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.

“Deepening military cooperation between Russia and North Korea poses a threat both to Indo-Pacific and Euro-Atlantic security,” stated NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently. In turn, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who discussed the topic in a phone conversation with South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, called the sending of North Korean troops “a critical issue that exacerbates an already protracted war in Ukraine.” Meanwhile, the Pentagon has shifted from accusations to threats. As Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh stated, Washington will not impose new restrictions on Ukraine's use of American weapons if North Korea enters the war with Moscow against Kyiv.

According to data provided by Kyiv, Washington, and Seoul, Pyongyang plans to send a total of over 10,900 military personnel to Eastern Russia for training and further participation in combat operations. All of them are expected to be on Russian territory by December, with more than 3,000 already on-site undergoing training. In return, Pyongyang is reportedly receiving technological support from Moscow for its satellite project.

Notably, South Korean news agency Yonhap recently reported that Seoul is considering sending its military observers to Ukraine to assist in interrogating North Korean prisoners of war if they are captured. This issue will likely be discussed in detail during the visit of a South Korean delegation to Kyiv this week, which, according to the country’s foreign ministry, will take place “to exchange information on the deployment of North Korean troops in Russia and to discuss forms of cooperation.”

By the way, on October 29, the presidents of Ukraine and South Korea, Volodymyr Zelensky and Yoon Suk-yeol, spoke by phone and, as stated from Bankova, “strongly condemned the illegal military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, including arms supplies and troop deployment.” Moreover, according to unconfirmed official information, Zelensky decided to send a special envoy to South Korea very soon for “strategic consultations.”