The collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria has not changed the balance of power in the war between Russia and Ukraine. There is no doubt that the Ukraine war, after the deaths of hundreds of thousands, will end through negotiations, much as it could have ended two years ago. The difference is that Ukraine will probably now lose not only Crimea, but also much of the Donbas region. Only increased, direct Western military intervention is likely to prevent that outcome, and doing so would pose significant risks.
By now it is obvious that Ukraine is not winning the war. Nato has provided many billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine including Patriot missiles, HIMARS and ATACMS missiles, Abrams tanks, F-16 aircraft, and now Storm Shadow missiles. None of this has produced a successful Ukrainian offensive. Instead, the conflict has become a war of attrition that relentlessly drains Ukrainian manpower and Nato arsenals. A nation of around 35 million people with a GDP of around $180 billion cannot hope to defeat a nation with a population of 150 million and a GDP of $2 trillion. The harsh reality is that Ukraine has as much of a chance of defeating Russia as Belgium would of defeating Germany, no matter how many Western weapons they receive.
The fall of Assad is not necessarily a sign of Russian weakness. In 2016, Russian air power, not ground forces, helped the Syrian army maintain control of the country. In 2024, a demoralised Syrian army dissolved without a fight. With Assad’s own army disbanding, there was little Russian air power could do to rescue him. At the moment, Russia’s two bases in Syria remain in Russian hands and their future is unclear. What is clear, however, is that Putin has kept his eyes on Ukraine, where Russian forces continue to take as much territory as possible before any potential negotiations begin.
Nor will economic sanctions change the war’s outcome. Beginning in 2022, Western nations imposed on Russia the most extensive sanctions regime seen since the Second World War. All in all, several thousand sanctions were placed on Russian individuals, businesses, and government institutions. This caused only a mild recession in 2022 which was quickly turned around. Instead of collapsing, the Russian economy has grown rapidly. Russia’s GDP grew by 3.6% in 2023, and is estimated to grow at the same rate this year. Ironically, the Russians have done better than those imposing the sanctions. In 2023, the US economy grew only by 2.5% while the German economy actually shrank, and the EU as a whole grew by less than 1%.
We should also remember that not losing the war is far more important to the Russian people and leadership than it is to Britain. Russians believe they are fighting a war for survival against a corrupt, godless, and implacable West. When Leopard tanks arrived in Ukraine, the headlines in Moscow read “German tanks again on Russian soil”. Every Russian parent who has lost a son to a German tank or a British missile is now demanding victory and revenge. What’s more, if Russia is defeated, President Vladimir Putin will not survive politically — the more Putin fears losing, the more he will escalate. If he falls from power, he will not be replaced by liberal democrats, but by even more hard-line Russian nationalists.
The justifications for Britain supporting Ukraine have always been questionable, but very seldom questioned. Instead, a jingoist media has consistently understated the risks involved while encouraging support for the war based upon three assumptions: Russia’s invasion was unprovoked; Ukraine is a democratic, long-unified nation worth defending; and Ukraine can win the war. Each of these assumptions is badly flawed.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA fine article, imo.
One aspect of the Ukraine war (and, indeed, this article) that surprises me is Britain’s view of its role in the conflict and the world.
I don’t mean to disrespect the many British readers of Unherd, but I often feel the UK government, and “elite” class in general, overestimates its role and capability in world affairs. I suspect it’s testament to the UK’s effective diplomatic corps that Brits can maintain this conceit.
Was the provision of Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine really so important, and was it done as a display of UK’s military prowess or simply at the behest of the USA? Let’s be honest, the UK is often the US’s proxy, providing some “multilateral” cover for what is, in reality, unilateral action by the US. Reports from the long middle east conflict(s) since 2000 make clear that the UK military couldn’t sustain itself without extensive US support.
There might, indeed, be a nuclear exchange between Russia and the West, but I have a suspicion it would be restricted to Europe which relies on the US for nuclear protection. Would the US come to Europe’s aid if, through back channels, Putin made it clear to Washington that nuclear conflict would not spread beyond Europe provided the US didn’t enter the fray?
Let’s hope Trump really is Master of the Deal, and can defuse this situation next year.
Don’t worry, we’re not disrespected by that, you’re absolutely right. Could be that Unherd readers are more robust in that respect than average though!
“Russia is far stronger than we think”.
And Britain is far weaker than we realise.
Unherd has some unnerving tendencies in its desire to be ‘heterogenous’. This article is not one of them. In fact, it is what makes the magazine valuable. Simple truths, simply stated, you might call it lucidity, will always have an audience. Those truths are of the kind readers think they could have written themselves. Many of them could have. I would take issue, though, with some of the author’s criticism of the anti-democratic nature of present day Ukraine. It is a country at war, after all. You don’t want your able-bodied fleeing the country or those that remain undermining morale. Civil liberties are for people not under duress from an external foe.
You might think the author is being prophetic about Ukraine. He is not. He is simply describing what is inevitable.
Yes, that sums it up accurately.
Tact: the art of telling a man to go take a hike, and making him feel good about it.
What we need more of in this world is less fightin’, my friends. I suggest that a dealmaker (i.e. Donald J. Trump) may do very well in this, as shown by his first term. He knows how to “speak softly and carry a big stick”, indeed …..
I’m always surprised at how certain my friends are on the question of Ukraine.
The lack of knowledge on what got us here is genuinely shocking. And again these are not stupid people. It makes me think that this lack of knowledge extends into all areas, even governments.
This lack of knowledge among our ‘governing global elites’ was made shockingly obvious by the Canadian parliament applauding a WW2 Ukrainian soldier who fought the Russians! Anyone with basic knowledge should’ve had their alarm bells ringing over that. But apparently not.
Eastward expansion of NATO was always going to hit a wall eventually. And unfortunately for the Ukrainians it appears that they are that wall.
The only people to have benefited from this war are the military contractors. Not only have they got to refill the NATO stock pile of goodies. But they also get two new markets to sell to with the addition of Sweden and Finland in the NATO family.
This is the best assessment of the war in Ukraine, its causes, and its unnecessary escalations I’ve read in a long time. A common sense, realistic, and pragmatic take.
How are the people with disabilities being cared for now in Ukraine? Just after the war started there were reports that they were being housed like animals and written off as to any possibility that they could achieve anything in life.
At least this is one area of life that progressivism in the UK has changed for the better.
On the issue of US and UK missiles used in support of the Kursk invasion, imagine how the UK government and public would react if Russia supplied missiles to Argentina to fire into the Falkland Islands in support of an Argentinian invasion.
In the face of the level of Western involvement in the Ukraine war, Russian restraint is remarkable. And remarkable for not being remarked on in the UK media with its stories of Russian aircraft approaching Britain as if it were 1940. The media goes full-on Paddington 2 mode. Mr Curry raising the panic level from occasional Zeppelin to Battle of Britain part deux and in full colour.
Examples from history always have to be treated with care. The duty that Britain had in 1914 according to the foreign secretary at the time was to France. Asquith added that Britain had no duty to Belgium. Today, the UK’s obligation is to Washington, not Ukraine.
It was observed at the time of the July crisis of 1914 that if the 1839 treaty with Belgium (originally to ensure Belgian independence from the Netherlands) had laid a military obligation on Britain, Gladstone would have not needed to temporarily replace this treaty with one that did.
Britain did not sleepwalk into the war in 1914. As in every capital, the decision was deliberate, and in London involved considerable dissimulation to negative the objections of the peace faction.
The efforts of President Woodrow Wilson to end the Great War on the grounds that no side had won came to nothing as neither side saw it in their advantage. Today, why would the Russians trust any Western participation in a peace treaty?
A good summation, but the author doesn’t refer to the dangerous dabbling of the EU in these debateable territories. Von der Leyen was in Kyiv in October 2021, promising that the EU would guarantee Ukraine’s energy security if it turned away from Russia towards Europe. The same game is being played in Georgia and Rumania right now.
correction – for Rumania read Moldova.