He discussed this in Oles Doniy's blog.
“Regarding this Plan. I have said for a long time that I dislike the name, as it does not correspond to the content. This is not a Plan for victory; these were our proposals for partners to encourage them to provide more decisive and effective support for Ukraine and to increase pressure on Russia, so as to enter negotiations from a stronger position. That was essentially the goal,” notes Vladimir Fesenko.
In his opinion, it is not very accurate to even call this a Plan for victory, because it was not about victory per se, but about actions from our partners. Secondly, the expert points out, this has created a traditional problem for us – it has formed inflated expectations specifically about victory, and many believed there was some secret military victory plan, etc., although for specialists it was obvious that it was about something different.
“This plan was relevant, in my opinion, at the end of September and the beginning of October. It was an attempt to prompt more decisive actions primarily from the Biden administration, to try to form a consolidated position among our Western partners, a consolidated strategy on how to help Ukraine, how to weaken Putin, ultimately so that we could enter negotiations from a stronger position,” explains Vladimir Fesenko.
So, the expert asserts, there were no significant strategic goals for this plan, although undoubtedly, it is not appropriate to take responsibility for those who wrote and formulated it; he does not know them, but the goal was clearly pragmatic.
As reported by Politeka, Starikov spoke about the situation on the Eastern Front: “Fierce battles are ongoing at Chasiv Yar, in the Toretsk direction”.
Politeka also reported that Karasev assessed the escalation in the war: “Biden is escalating”.