What if Ukraine falls? This is no longer a hypothetical question – and it must be answered urgently
Ukrainian heroism amid horror has become so familiar, it's almost taken for granted. But as Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, escalates the war, raining nightly terror on Kyiv and other cities using record waves of armed drones, as US support and peace efforts falter, and as Ukraine's overstretched frontline soldiers face exhaustion, such complacency looks increasingly misplaced. A no longer hypothetical question becomes ever more real and urgent: what if Ukraine falls?
Answer: Ukraine's collapse, if it happens, would amount to an epic western strategic failure matching or exceeding the Afghanistan and Iraq calamities. The negative ramifications for Europe, Britain, the transatlantic alliance and international law are truly daunting. That thought alone should concentrate minds.
It has been evident since the dying days of 2023, when its counteroffensive stalled, that Ukraine is not winning. For most of this year, Russian forces have inexorably inched forward in Donetsk and other eastern killing grounds, regardless of cost. Estimated Russian casualties recently surpassed 1 million, dead and wounded. Still they keep coming. While there has been no big Russian breakthrough, for Ukraine's pinned-down, under-supplied defenders the war is now a daily existential struggle. That they manage to keep going at all is astonishing.
How much longer Ukraine can hold the line, on the battlefield, in the skies, and diplomatically and politically, is in serious doubt. It is short of manpower, ammunition and interceptor missiles. It can still strike back hard. Its occupation of Russia's Kursk region, and last month's destruction of strategic bombers based deep inside Russia, were remarkable. But such temporary successes do not alter the basic imbalance of power or general direction of travel.
Increasingly, too, Ukraine is short of reliable friends, though maybe that has always been the case. Putin has assembled his own 'coalition of the willing' – China, Iran, North Korea and others – to support his war machine. The west's equivalent, led by Britain and France, is in limbo. Deployment of a military 'reassurance force' cannot proceed. Due to Putin's intransigence and Donald Trump's incompetence, there is no ceasefire to uphold and none in prospect.
Speaking in London last week, France's president, Emmanuel Macron, and Britain's prime minister, Keir Starmer, regurgitated familiar pledges of unflinching support. That's easy. Effective military assistance is harder. Like other European countries, the UK and France lack the advanced weapons and materiel, in the quantities required, that only the US can supply.
Attempting to fill the gap, Friedrich Merz, Germany's chancellor, proposes to buy US Patriot batteries and gift them to Kyiv. Yet like the EU as a whole and last month's Nato summiteers, Merz's priority is national self-defence. As he measures out missiles for Ukraine, he's trebling Germany's defence spending. The UK is doing much the same.
Trump, the US's surrender monkey, remains Kyiv's biggest diplomatic headache. His lopsided 30-day ceasefire plan was rejected by Moscow, his proffered US-Russia commercial deals spurned. After months of slandering Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and sucking up to Putin, the 'very stable genius' has concluded the Russian leader, an indicted war criminal, talks 'bullshit' and cannot be trusted. Well, fancy that.
Trump now says he will resume limited supplies of defensive weapons to Kyiv and may back additional sanctions. But this is not about policy or principle. His ego is damaged. His feelings are hurt. One flattering word from his smirking Kremlin bro could turn him around in a flash. Like all bullies, Trump instinctively favours the stronger party. Little wonder Putin calculates he can wear down Ukraine, outlast the west and win the war.
All is not lost. With or without Trump, Nato could take a tougher line, as repeatedly urged here, by imposing air exclusion zones over unoccupied Ukraine and targeting incoming missiles and drones. The military position is clearcut, the legal and humanitarian case is unassailable. Russia frequently infringes the sovereignty of Nato neighbours. Putin's attempts at nuclear blackmail, which so unnerved Joe Biden, are contemptible. If it only had the balls, Nato could put him back in his box.
Failing that, new US and EU sanctions targeting Russian oil exports should be imposed without further delay. Billions of Kremlin dollars held by western banks should be expropriated to pay for arms and reconstruction. Fence-straddlers such as India that refuse to sanction the Kremlin and profit from the war should be invited to read the European court of human rights' shocking new report on Russian war crimes savagery – and told to pick a side.
Two outcomes now seem most probable: a stalemated forever war, or Ukraine's collapse. Defeat for Ukraine and a settlement on Putin's hegemonic terms would be a defeat for the west as a whole – a strategic failure presaging an era of permanent, widening conflict across all of Europe. For Russians, too, neither outcome would constitute lasting victory. Greater efforts are needed to convince Russia's politicians and public that this war, so costly for their country in lives and treasure, can be ended through negotiation, that legitimate security concerns will be addressed, that the alternatives are far worse.
But first, they must give him up. The chief architect of this horror, the principal author of Russia's disgrace, must be defanged, deposed and delivered to international justice. Putin, not Ukraine, must fall.
Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
In maps: Why the entire peace deal hangs on this small strip of Ukraine
Although the Kazenyi Torets river runs through four major towns and is flanked by a railway and a road, you could drive the length of its valley without setting eyes on it. Hidden for most of its length by a thick band of marshy woodland on either bank, its waters are mostly left to kingfishers and frogs. Crucially, though, this placid river runs through the centre of the last quarter of Donetsk region held by Ukraine, and the string of towns on its banks have been forged into a fortress – a near-impregnable stronghold that has resisted Russian attacks for more than a decade. Eleven years ago, I watched the war in Ukraine begin on its banks. Three years ago, I sat again by the river and wondered as Russian shelling grew closer if it was the last time I would see it. Now, it is at the very heart of contentious negotiations to end the war. Vladimir Putin has written all of Donetsk region into the Russian constitution and has made clear he wants the entire region – especially this last, defiant valley – as a price for peace. Donald Trump appears to be ready to push Volodymyr Zelensky to make such a trade. Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's special envoy to Russia, said on Sunday there would be an 'important' and 'particularly detailed' discussion about the fate of Donetsk region when Mr Zelensky arrives in Washington on Monday. Mr Zelensky is reluctant: 'Russia is still unsuccessful in Donetsk region and Putin has been unable to take it for 12 years,' he said on Sunday, saying discussions about land swaps there are so important they should only be discussed bilaterally between Ukraine and Russia. To understand why Russia covets it so much, and Ukraine refuses to give it up, it is worth looking at a map. Here's why the 'Donetsk fortress' matters: Terrain Upstream, at the southern mouth of the valley, lies the city of Kostiantynivka. It is followed by Druzhkivka; Kramatorsk; and lastly Sloviansk, where it arcs to the east before meandering through a flood plain of reedbeds and reservoirs until meeting the Siversky Donets – the principal river of the Donbas. In fact, the very word, Donbas – used to describe the coal rich east of Ukraine now largely occupied by Russia – is a contraction of 'Donets Basin'. The irony is that the area's geological past means that this part of the basin is in fact a highland. And as a highland in a vast area of plain, it has huge strategic, military significance. True, these are not the Himalayas; the highest point is a little over 300m above sea level, and the incline is so gradual that if you were not paying attention you might not notice it. But nonetheless, it is a highland – a network of ridges and valleys that stands above the great Pontic Steppe that dominates the southern half of Ukraine and Russia. The Torets cuts a valley through the northern western extremity of this upland. On its right bank in particular, the land rises steeply to a ridge on which sits the town of Chasiv Yar and the current frontline. Today, those slopes and ridges are riddled with Ukrainian defensive lines built up over more than a decade. Inclines have been measured, deadground paced out, the rise and fall of the land integrated into kill zones and artillery ranges. This, in other words, is a valley that guards the entrance to the central heart of Ukraine, protecting it. Not just that, but it is a bastion protecting the whole of the current front line. Should it fall – or be handed over – not only will the Ukrainian steppe behind it be open, but Russian troops would have a platform to encircle Ukrainian forces both to Kharkiv in the north and Zaporizhzhia in the south. If Ukraine is forced to give it away, then, holding the frontline, or even defending the rest of the country at all, would be immeasurably harder should Russia decide to attack again and seize the territory which Putin still calls 'Novorossiya' – New Russia. Infrastructure Armies are, at the end of the day, very large groups of people. And like any large group of people, they need places to sleep. And places to eat. They need to get around, they need fuel, they need hospitals and coffee shops, and all the other things that most of us take for granted. In other words, they need a city. When Ukraine lost control of Donetsk, the regional capital, in 2014, it was left at a major disadvantage: the enemy possessed the most comfortable and advanced cluster of infrastructure between the Russian border and the central Ukraine city of Dnipro. The Ukrainians were left with the villages outside that had relied on the big city for much of their economic well being. The country towns of Kramatorsk, Sloviansk, Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka were the next best thing. It was a landscape of post-Soviet neglect: a derelict glass factory that had once made the stars to adorn the top of the Kremlin; the distant slag heaps of the mining towns; towns mostly made up of small houses where many people scraped a living from their allotments; a road linking them that even before the war was badly in need of resurfacing. But served by a major railway and a highway that connect all four towns to both Kharkiv and Kyiv, the valley was convenient for logistics, for resupply and medical treatment. And there was just enough of a domestic economy to serve the rest of the army's needs: from supermarkets to pizza joints and petrol stations. Over time the conurbation – the towns sometimes seem to run into each other as you tumble down the H20 highway – was turned into both a fortress and an economic and logistical centre. Kramatorsk's military airbase, which lies on the ridge on the eastern side of town, became the command centre for the eight-year, low-level war fought between 2014 and 2022. It was not without friction. The influx of soldiers caused tensions. A portion of the local population was always sympathetic to Russia. Even after the full-scale invasion it was possible to meet locals who would admit – nudge nudge, wink wink – that their views had not changed. Since the invasion began, the towns have taken on even greater significance. Kostiantynivka was the logistics hub to support both Bakhmut, Chasiv Yar, and Toretsk during the Russian assaults on them. Further north, Sloviansk and Kramatorsk have acted as the rear areas for battles around Lyman, Izyum and the ongoing struggle in the Siversk Salient. If the valley falls, the Ukrainians lose not only fortifications and favourable topography: they lose the urban logistics and infrastructure that make it possible to sustain an army and a defence. And don't forget the several hundred-thousand civilians who call the valley home. Many have even moved back after fleeing at the start of the full-scale invasion, reasoning that Kramatorsk is at least as safe – or safer – than other parts of the country. The next possible defensive towns – Izyum and Bavinkove in the Kharkiv Region, Petropavlivka in Dnipropetrovsk Region – either lie dozens of miles away or will be left vulnerable, their flanks open, if the Torets valley fortress falls. History Putin's interest in this corner of Donbas is partly political: he has told the Russian public that his goal is to liberate the whole of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, so he needs to capture it to be able to claim a victory true to his word. Not since French general Robert Nivelle declared the Germans 'shall not pass' at Verdun has a fortress town taken on such political and emotional, as well as strategic, significance. This, in fact, is where the Russo-Ukrainian war began – in April 2014 when a handful of heavily armed desperadoes led by a Russian intelligence officer called Igor Girkin stormed into the town hall, police station and security service office in Sloviansk. They quickly moved on to other towns down the valley and over the hills, storming police stations and abducting, torturing and murdering opponents as they went. Two of their victims – the local councillor Volodymyr Rybak and a teenage activist called Yuri Poporavka – were tortured to death and dumped in the Torets. The Ukrainian recapture of Sloviansk and the rest of the Torets valley in June that year was their first big success of the war – in fact, the first time the Ukrainian military proved it could take on and defeat Russian-led forces. Ever since, Sloviansk in particular has become totemic to both sides. To the Russians, it is the birthplace of their astro-turfed, FSB-led 'rebellion' that provided the excuse for invasion. To the Ukrainians, it is the ground zero of their battle for national survival. The legend has been magnified 1,000-fold since the full scale invasion. In the summer of 2022, the Ukrainians stubbornly defied a Russian attempt to storm the fortress valley from two sides. The enemy came within earshot of Sloviansk from the north, the rumble of Russian artillery creeping closer by the day. But they were never able to get into the valley before they were thrown back in a Ukrainian counter offensive. Ever since, Russia's operations – from the nine-month battle for Bakhmut to the current assault on Pokrovsk and Toretsk – have been directed ultimately at Kostiantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. So many Ukrainians have now died trying to defend and hold the fortress belt towns; so many men and women from all over Ukraine know the valley and its potholed highway; so many have stopped for their last coffee before the front at its petrol stations that surrender is almost unthinkable.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ukraine war live: ‘Russia must end this war,' Zelenskyy says as he arrives in Washington for Trump talks
Update: Date: 2025-08-18T05:13:29.000Z Title: Opening summary Content: Welcome to our live coverage of the war in Ukraine. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has declared 'Russia must end this war' as he arrived in Washington DC ahead of a crucial talks with Donald Trump over the Russia-Ukraine conflict. A host of European leaders will join Zelenskyy on Monday for the summit as they seek to provide a counterpoint to Vladimir Putin's arguments following his talks with the US president on Friday. The leaders – British prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian PM Giorgia Meloni and Finnish president Alexander Stubb – cleared their diaries to fly to the US at short notice, which is seen as a measure of how alarmed they were by Friday's Trump-Putin summit in Anchorage. After the Alaska talks Trump reportedly endorsed the Kremlin's plan to end the war in Ukraine, including Kyiv giving up territory that Russia has been unable to seize and no ceasefire until a final deal has been agreed. Zelenskyy said in a post on X as he arrived in Washington late on Sunday that he was grateful to Trump for the invitation and 'we all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably'. He also said that 'peace must be lasting'. 'Russia must end this war, which it itself started,' Zelenskyy said. 'And I hope that our joint strength with America, with our European friends, will force Russia into a real peace.' Here are some of the latest developments: Zelenskyy met European leaders in Brussels earlier on Sunday and reiterated Ukraine's stance on land swaps, saying on X: 'Ukraine's constitution makes it impossible to give up or trade land. Since the territorial issue is so important, it should be discussed only by the leaders of Ukraine and Russia at the trilateral – Ukraine, the US, Russia. So far, Russia gives no sign this will happen, and if Russia refuses, new sanctions must follow.' Ahead of Monday's peace talks in the US, Emmanuel Macron said that in order to have a 'lasting peace deal for Ukraine, Ukraine needs a strong army'. He added that European allies want 'Ukraine's territorial integrity to be respected' and that 'Ukraine must be represented in any talks on Ukraine's future'. The French president also said that 'our goal for tomorrow's talks is to present a united front between Ukraine and its European allies'. The Washington talks will also be attended by the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, and Nato's secretary general, Mark Rutte. Zelenskyy has hailed the decision to offer security guarantees to Ukraine as part of a peace deal as he prepared to meet Trump. 'Security guarantees, as a result of our joint work, must really be very practical, delivering protection on land, in the air and at sea, and must be developed with Europe's participation,' the Ukrainian president said. In announcing his visit to Washington, Keir Starmer praised Trump for his 'efforts to end Russia's illegal war in Ukraine'. At the same time, the British PM reasserted Europe's red lines, saying the 'path to peace' could not be decided without Zelenskyy and that Russia should be 'squeezed' with further sanctions. Starmer has deliberately sought to position himself as a leader who can get along with Trump while consistently stressing the red lines over any peace plan. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said Russia and Ukraine were both 'going to have to make concessions' for there to be a peaceful resolution to the war. In interviews on Sunday Rubio said the talks in Alaska had 'made progress in the sense that we identified potential areas of agreement – but there remains some big areas of disagreement'. 'We're still a long ways off,' Rubio added. 'We're not at the precipice of a peace agreement. We're not at the edge of one. But I do think progress was made and towards one.' He declined to go into specific areas of agreement or disagreement. Trump's Ukraine envoy, Steve Witkoff, said Putin had agreed that the US and European allies could offer Ukraine a Nato-style, 'Article 5-like' security guarantee as part of an eventual deal to end the war. Witkoff added that Russia had agreed to unspecified concessions on five Ukrainian regions central to the war, particularly the eastern Donetsk province. 'We agreed to robust security guarantees that I would describe as gamechanging,' he said. Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's envoy to international organisations in Vienna, said early on Monday that Russia agreed that any future peace agreement must provide security guarantees to Kyiv, but added that Russia 'has equal right to expect that Moscow will also get efficient security guarantees'. European Union council president Antonio Costa said he 'welcomed the United States' willingness to participate in providing security guarantees to Ukraine'. He said: 'Transatlantic unity is paramount at this moment to achieve a sustainable peace in Ukraine.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
MoD slammed after ministers not told about US troops on Scottish soil
Last year, it emerged that a new base in Lossiemouth, in Moray, would host American Poseidon P8 anti-submarine spy and war planes. When the site opened in May 2024, it became the first time the US military had a presence in Scotland since the end of the Cold War. The Scottish Greens raised concerns that the move signalled the UK Government forging 'closer military relations' with Donald Trump while he is cosying up to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Stop the War said that the decision to allow US troops to be stationed in Scotland without consulting Holyrood should be 'condemned'. READ MORE: Police Scotland 'breaching human rights to subdue Palestine protests' The National lodged a Freedom of Information (FOI) request with the Scottish Government for any correspondence from the MoD regarding the decision to allow US troops to have a presence in Scotland. 'The Scottish Government does not hold the information you have requested, as matters relating to Defence are reserved to the UK Government,' the response from an official in the Veteran's Unit said. 'As a result, this information is not shared with the Scottish Government. As such, I hereby provide you with formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested.' The MoD previously refuted any suggestion there was a US military base in Scotland, following an investigation by the Ferret. Instead they insisted it was a US 'presence' with a 'US naval detachment' at Lossiemouth. The US navy helped to fund the construction of the new facility where its war planes will be housed, and are set to work alongside UK aircraft. Arianne Burgess, the Scottish Greens MSP who represents the area covering Lossiemouth, said: "A lot of local people will be shocked by these revelations and with the lack of any announcement or basic information. (Image: AP) "The last thing we should be doing is forging even closer military relations with Donald Trump, especially at a time when he is cozying up to Putin and arming genocide against the people of Gaza. "It's time for the Ministry of Defence to level with people and come clean about its arrangements. "With Keir Starmer seemingly joined at the hip with the White House it's more important than ever that Scotland forges its own foreign policy based on human rights, peace and a rejection of the values of Donald Trump." A spokesperson for Stop the War said that there should be 'no US troops or weapons on UK soil'. 'They do not make us any safer from the threats that the warmonger politicians are so enthusiastic about talking up in order to justify increases in defence spending while cutting welfare and hitting the most vulnerable in society the hardest,' they added. READ MORE: SNP councillor hits back at 'lie' he defected to Reform UK 'That the MoD has stationed US troops at RAF Lossiemouth without consultation with Holyrood is of course to be condemned, but comes as no surprise given the Westminster government also allowed US nuclear weapons to be placed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk without any transparency or debate in Parliament." A spokesperson for the MoD said: "The United States is the UK's closest defence and security partner. As NATO allies, we regularly conduct exercises and operations together to support European and global security. "Defence supports hundreds of thousands of high-skilled jobs across the UK, including over 26,000 in Scotland." US troops had been based in Scotland since the 1960s, including nuclear armed submarines at Holy Loch on the Clyde. After the Cold War ended in 1991, US forces left Holy Loch in 1992. They then left Machranish on the Mull of Kintyre, where nuclear mines were housed, in 1995, and Edzell in Aberdeenshire, a signals intelligence network, in 1997. It comes amid concerns that Trump is in favour of a Russian land grab to end the war in Ukraine, following a meeting with Putin in Alaska. Following the summit, the US President suggested he wants to move straight to a full peace deal, rather than negotiating a ceasefire first. The shift in Trump's position appears to echo the Russians' refusal to agree to a ceasefire before engaging in peace talks. Ukrainian president Vlodymyr Zelenskyy is set to visit the US on Monday, and is set to take UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and top European leaders with him to DC for crunch talks with the US President.
