For months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has championed his “victory plan” in discussions with Western leaders and in frequent media appearances. He has expressed confidence that his strategy would enable Ukraine’s military to corner Russia into an untenable position ahead of potential negotiations.

Yet, the plan hinges on several highly ambitious provisions—provisions that even Europe’s staunchest supporters of Ukraine have been unwilling to fully embrace. The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency complicates Zelensky’s efforts further. Trump, a self-declared isolationist, has effectively dashed Zelensky’s hopes of achieving a definitive victory over Russia.

Central to Zelensky’s strategy is Ukraine’s long-sought entry into NATO, coupled with the permission to employ Western-supplied missiles for deep strikes into Russian territory. Western leaders have neither outright rejected nor endorsed this plan. However, Ukraine’s recent military challenges—following a brief, strategically insignificant invasion of Kursk, Russia—highlight the steep odds.

Over recent months, Ukraine has endured setback after setback, coupled with a staggering population loss of approximately 25%. NATO, while steadfast in its support of Ukraine, continues to navigate the geopolitical complexities of this conflict. Publicly, the alliance has reaffirmed that Ukraine’s accession is “irreversible,” but the road ahead remains fraught with challenges.

Moscow’s firm “red lines” are a key factor shaping NATO’s cautious approach. While Washington and London often dismiss Russia’s threats rhetorically, their policies reveal a measured restraint. For instance, though the Biden administration authorized Ukraine’s use of ATACMS missiles on specific Russian targets, both the U.S. and the UK have imposed limits on how far Ukraine can strike within Russian territory. Officials argue that a single weapon or strategy will not determine the outcome of the war. Yet, the underlying concern is more profound: crossing Moscow’s boundaries risks severe escalation.

These fears are not unfounded. After Ukraine’s initial deployment of ATACMS, Russia revised its nuclear doctrine, signaling the potential consequences of crossing one of its red lines. Ukraine’s NATO ambitions also represent a flashpoint. Although NATO has expedited Ukraine’s membership pathway, the alliance has yet to extend a formal invitation. The reason is straightforward—granting Ukraine immediate membership would entangle NATO in direct conflict with Russia.

While many European nations remain committed to supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty, the prospect of a full-scale war with Russia is a line they are not prepared to cross. A long-term invitation to NATO may serve as a deterrent to future conflicts, but for now, the priority on both sides is avoiding outright escalation.

Europe’s economic constraints further complicate its ability to respond. The continent faces growing debt pressures, with 11 EU nations exceeding the bloc’s deficit thresholds and average government debt in the eurozone hovering at 88% of GDP. These financial challenges heighten fears of another debt crisis. In this context, a direct war with Russia is economically unfeasible for Europe. Across the Atlantic, American willingness to escalate its involvement is also fading. President-elect Trump has repeatedly emphasized his desire to pull back from U.S. military commitments in Europe and has even suggested ending aid to Ukraine.

Still, Russia’s position is far from advantageous. With a GDP of just $2 trillion—compared to the EU’s $18 trillion—Russia is struggling to sustain its campaign. President Vladimir Putin has been forced to rely on arms and personnel from North Korea to supplement his forces. Despite NATO’s reluctance to engage in direct military conflict, the reality is that Russia would struggle to withstand the collective military power of even a handful of NATO members. Yet, this hypothetical scenario underscores the broader risks inherent in Zelensky’s plan.

Ultimately, the global calculus has left Zelensky’s “victory plan” increasingly untenable. While defense contractors stand to gain from the West’s continued supply of arms to Ukraine, European nations remain reluctant to commit their own forces to the battlefield. As international focus shifts toward Israel’s escalating conflict with Iran and its proxies, Ukraine faces a sobering reality: the war is unlikely to end with the decisive military triumph Zelensky envisioned. Instead, negotiations may be the only viable path forward.