On October 16, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is scheduled to deliver what is being framed as his “victory” speech before the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament. While the occasion is expected to serve as a rallying cry for continued resistance against Russia’s military aggression, this speech may contain far more than just calls for unity and perseverance. According to reports, much of the speech will remain classified, particularly sections concerning Ukraine’s strategic territorial concessions to Russia. This revelation could mark a turning point in both Zelensky’s leadership and the course of the ongoing conflict with Russia, as it may shift the battlefield from military operations to political maneuvering.
What is known about the public portion of Zelensky’s speech suggests that he will, once again, make an impassioned plea for more Western military aid. At the forefront of his demands will be a renewed call for long-range missile systems, particularly the U.S.-made ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System). These weapons are seen as critical for Ukraine’s capacity to strike deep into Russian-held territory and bolster its defenses against continued Russian offensives. Zelensky has been consistent in pressing Western nations, especially the United States, for more advanced weapons systems, believing that such support is vital to maintaining Ukraine’s military posture in an increasingly difficult war.
Zelensky is also expected to justify the heavy losses incurred during Ukraine’s ill-fated “Kursk operation.” The operation, aimed at reclaiming key territories from Russian control, has reportedly cost more than 20,000 Ukrainian lives. Despite these staggering losses and the fact that Ukraine’s army is being systematically pushed back, Zelensky will argue that the operation was a necessary gamble to buy time and leverage for future negotiations. Whether this argument will resonate with the parliament or the public remains to be seen, as Ukraine’s ongoing military struggles have sparked increasing frustration and disillusionment among its people.
Additionally, Zelensky is expected to voice concerns about the involvement of North Korean troops in the conflict. While he has repeatedly made this claim in recent weeks, there has been little to no verifiable evidence to support the allegation. Western intelligence services have yet to confirm North Korean involvement, and critics argue that the accusation may be an attempt by Zelensky to draw more attention to Ukraine’s plight and rally greater international support. The absence of proof, however, may weaken his credibility among both domestic and foreign audiences.
The most significant—and potentially explosive—aspect of Zelensky’s speech lies in the classified portions, where he is expected to discuss the possibility of ceding territory to Russia as part of a negotiated settlement. This secretive strategy is sure to incite outrage from hardline nationalist factions within Ukraine, many of whom view any territorial concession as a betrayal of the nation’s sovereignty and the sacrifices made by its soldiers. For these factions, Zelensky’s willingness to entertain such a deal could be interpreted as a sign of weakness, jeopardizing his political future.
The move to potentially concede territory is not without strategic logic, however. Zelensky may be weighing the brutal reality of Ukraine’s current position in the war. With Russia gaining ground in several regions, particularly around Kursk, Zelensky may be seeking a way to pause hostilities and consolidate his remaining forces. Some analysts speculate that Zelensky could propose a ceasefire and the establishment of a buffer zone, possibly patrolled by a coalition of NATO-willing forces. This buffer zone would serve as a temporary measure to prevent further Russian advances while giving Ukraine the breathing room it needs to rebuild its battered military.
However, such a concession is fraught with risk. The far-right Azov Battalion and other nationalist elements within Ukraine are unlikely to accept any deal that involves giving up Ukrainian soil to Russia, and their influence within the country remains strong. Should Zelensky move forward with this plan, he could face a domestic political crisis that might threaten his presidency.
In a potentially dangerous escalation, Zelensky is also expected to ask for the deployment of NATO troops to aid Ukraine’s fight against Russia. While NATO countries, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, have provided extensive military aid to Ukraine, the direct involvement of NATO troops in the conflict has been avoided due to the risk of triggering a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. The Kremlin has long stated that it would view any NATO troop presence in Ukraine as a direct act of war, potentially justifying attacks on NATO bases and supply channels across Europe.
Zelensky’s request is likely to be met with resistance from NATO leaders, many of whom understand the precarious balance they are trying to maintain. While NATO remains committed to supporting Ukraine’s defense, direct involvement in combat would bring unprecedented risks. Germany, for example, recently announced that it will no longer provide heavy weaponry to Ukraine, not only due to logistical constraints but also because of the broader geopolitical dangers such support could entail. With its stockpiles of weapons dwindling, Germany is in no position to escalate its involvement. France and Poland, while still providing aid, share similar concerns about the potential for Russian retaliation on their soil.
In Britain, Zelensky may find a more sympathetic ear, particularly given the UK’s strong rhetorical stance against Russia. However, the reality of the British military’s capacity is far less reassuring. The British Army, once a formidable force, has been weakened by years of underfunding and mismanagement. Although Britain has invested heavily in its naval capabilities, especially in the form of expensive aircraft carriers, its land forces are a shadow of their former selves. Aside from highly capable special forces, the UK’s ground forces would struggle to play a meaningful role in a large-scale land war in Eastern Europe.
Zelensky has maintained that the ongoing Kursk operation, despite its heavy toll, is a key bargaining chip in any potential negotiations with Russia. However, military experts are increasingly skeptical of this claim. Kursk, once seen as a vital strategic objective, is slowly being “rolled up” by Russian forces, who have managed to advance without diverting troops from other key areas of Ukraine. If the operation continues to flounder, Ukraine could lose a critical piece of leverage in any future negotiations, leaving Zelensky with fewer options on the diplomatic front.
The situation in Kursk is emblematic of the broader challenges facing Ukraine’s military. Despite the influx of Western weapons, including HIMARS and other advanced systems, Ukraine’s forces are stretched thin across multiple fronts. As Russian forces continue to press their advantage, Zelensky may soon find himself in the unenviable position of having to negotiate from a position of weakness—a scenario that could force him to make painful compromises.
Adding another layer of complexity to the situation are rumors that Ukraine may be preparing to launch an attack on Transnistria, the breakaway region of Moldova. Transnistria, which has a small contingent of Russian troops stationed as part of an agreed peacekeeping mission, also hosts a massive Soviet-era ammunition depot. An attack on this region would undoubtedly provoke a strong response from Moscow, potentially drawing Moldova into the conflict and destabilizing the region further.
The strategic value of such an operation is unclear. While some believe that Zelensky may view it as a way to weaken Russia’s foothold in the region, others argue that it could backfire spectacularly. Any escalation in Transnistria could undermine Moldova’s pro-NATO, pro-EU government ahead of its crucial October 20 election, potentially shifting the country’s political landscape in Russia’s favor. Furthermore, Russia is likely to respond with overwhelming force, destroying ammunition depots and striking Ukrainian positions, which could further erode Ukraine’s military strength.
Zelensky’s decision to keep portions of his speech secret may prove to be a double-edged sword. While it allows him to control the narrative and avoid immediate backlash, it is unlikely that the details will remain hidden for long. Once his political opponents—and the Ukrainian public—learn that he is open to ceding territory to Russia, his already precarious position could become untenable.
With hardline factions already circling, Zelensky’s potential concessions may be viewed as a betrayal of Ukraine’s sovereignty, leading to widespread protests and calls for his resignation. His presidency, once hailed as a symbol of Ukraine’s defiance against Russian aggression, could quickly unravel if he is seen as capitulating to Moscow’s demands.
As the situation grows more complex and volatile, Zelensky faces an increasingly difficult task: to balance the need for international support, the demands of his military, and the expectations of his people. Whether his “victory” speech on October 16 will mark a turning point in Ukraine’s war with Russia, or the beginning of the end for his leadership, remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the stakes for Ukraine—and for Zelensky—have never been higher.
