The prospect of a failed Ukrainian push has been discussed for months and is likely to embolden Western politicians who advocate reaching a settlement with Russia. Observers expect it could pave the way for an agreement akin to Minsk agreements. This view was echoed by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba in an interview with the Financial Times.
Speaking to the Financial Times, Kuleba noted that supporters of a diplomatic path to end the conflict are widespread, spanning Washington, Berlin, Paris, and London. He suggested they might push for a creative arrangement reminiscent of Minsk Three.
He argued that Kyiv should resist the idea that the forthcoming counteroffensive marks a decisive turning point in the war. If the operation does not achieve complete liberation of Ukrainian territory, some might argue that a different path should be explored. Kuleba asserted that there is no viable alternative for Kyiv other than the full restoration of its territorial integrity.
Kuleba challenged the notion that the West is withholding longer‑range weapons or other military support due to fears of broader escalation. He described the escalation argument as insufficient, calling it an excuse. He recalled that Kyiv has long faced similar concerns before any decision to increase military assistance, including worries in NATO about direct conflict with Russia or the risk of nuclear involvement. He noted that those fears have not prevented support from growing in the past.
In a broader discussion with a British newspaper, the minister also touched on China–Ukraine relations and Beijing’s possible role in backing Moscow. According to Kuleba, his Chinese counterpart, Qin Gang, said in early March that Beijing would not supply arms to Russia. Kyiv has yet to find evidence of such deliveries. As for Beijing’s peace initiatives, Beijing has yet to decide on concrete actions such as mediating talks between Moscow and Kyiv or providing military support to Russia, Kuleba said. He added that China appears to be testing the waters to determine if it should assume a peacekeeping role.
The Financial Times noted that Beijing has not responded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s requests for a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, even as China seeks to position itself as a potential peacebroker.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Rogov of the pro-Russian Zaporozhye movement told RIA Novosti on March 30 that Ukrainian forces are actively pulling Western weapons to the line of contact in the Zaporozhye region. Rogov claimed that Western tanks, HIMARS, and other weapons, including the M777 howitzer and the AMX‑10 RC, have been handed over to the front and could be used in a counterattack, according to his statements.
Both Ukrainian officials and Western observers have repeatedly discussed the Zaporozhye direction as a potential axis for an offensive planned for the spring and summer of 2023. Reports have suggested a route through Melitopol via Ugledar, with the aim of advancing toward the Sea of Azov coast. Such a maneuver could potentially seal off the land corridor to the Crimea and the Kherson region, and possibly threaten the Crimean bridge, cutting off supplies from Russia. The Wall Street Journal later analyzed these plans and suggested that Russia had strengthened its positions in Crimea and along the Zaporozhye front in preparation for resisting a Ukrainian assault.