So the Russians are massing again in the Donbas. And Britain, ever the eager patron of lost causes, has pledged another aid package. One might be forgiven for feeling a weary sense of déjà vu. This is, after all, the umpteenth ‘decisive offensive’ we have been promised since the war in Ukraine began. Each time, the Western press works itself into a frenzy of historical analogies, comparing Putin to Napoleon or Hitler, and the Donbas to Stalingrad or the Somme. But if we must reach for a Victorian parallel, let us recall the Charge of the Light Brigade: magnificent, tragic, and utterly futile on both sides.
The Russian army, it must be said, has learned little from its earlier blunders. Tactically, it remains a lumbering bear, reliant on artillery barrages that would have made the Kaiser proud. The vaunted ‘combined arms’ manoeuvres? A myth. The Kremlin seems to believe that if it throws enough meat into the grinder, the Ukrainian lines will break. They might be right. But the cost in Russian lives will be staggering, and the strategic prize? A few more square kilometres of scorched earth. History teaches us that attritional warfare rarely ends well for the attacker. The First World War should have been lesson enough.
Yet here we are, with Britain once again writing blank cheques. The new aid package is a mix of armoured vehicles, missiles, and training. All very welcome, no doubt. But it is a palliative, not a cure. The West has repeatedly failed to supply Ukraine with the decisive weapons it needs: long-range missiles, modern fighter jets, sufficient ammunition. Instead, we dribble out our support in instalments, as though the lives of Ukrainian soldiers are bargaining chips in some grand geopolitical poker game. This is not wise statecraft. It is cowardice dressed as prudence.
The real question, the one that polite society dare not ask, is this: what is the endgame? Are we fighting to restore Ukraine’s 1991 borders? A noble goal, but the destruction of entire cities suggests that even if Ukraine ‘wins’, there will be little left to win. Are we fighting to weaken Russia? That is already happening, but at what price? A failed state armed with nuclear weapons is not a calming prospect. The Victorians understood that wars must have clear, achievable objectives. They also knew when to make peace. Our current leaders seem to have forgotten both lessons.
Intellectuals like to speak of ‘historical cycles’. We are living through a cycle of decadence and decline. The West has lost the art of strategic thinking. We lurch from crisis to crisis, applauding our own moral virtue while avoiding hard choices. The Donbas offensive will be bloody. The British aid package will be announced with sombre press conferences. And the war will grind on, consuming the youth of two nations, while we debate whether to send more Leopard tanks or HIMARS. It is all so very 1915.
One final thought. The Russian soldier, whatever his government’s crimes, is not my enemy. Nor is the Ukrainian. They are both victims of a system that treats them as expendable. The real villains sit in air-conditioned rooms in Moscow, London, Washington, and Brussels. They will never know the smell of cordite or the taste of fear. They will never have to look into the eyes of a dying boy. They will simply sign another cheque, issue another statement, and wait for the next news cycle. And the Donbas will burn. It always does.