Ukraine: a lack of belief

By Richard North - March 3, 2025

“Our starting point”, says Starmer, in his remarks at the “international leaders’ summit conference” yesterday, “must be to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position now so that they can negotiate from a position of strength”.

Compare and contrast, if you will, the words of president Trump who on Friday told Zelensky that “You’re right now not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position…”.

The difference between the two approaches might possibly be explained by a difference in perspectives between the two governments. On the one hand, it appears that the US government is convinced that Ukraine is losing the war and is trapped in an irrecoverable doom loop, where things can only get worse.

From the British perspective, there seems to be an almost Pollyanna-like approach where the government, fed on a diet of MoD briefings sustained by a heavy dose of Ukrainian propaganda, is firmly of the belief that, with just a little more help from its friends, the UAF can push back the Russian hordes and thus turn up, triumphant to the negotiating table with a bag stuffed with bargaining chips.

Right on cue, we have the MoD’s representative on earth, the Daily Telegraph, publish a gushing piece by Harriet Barber headed: “New Ukrainian general inflicts ‘unsustainable losses’ on Russia”, with the sub-head telling us that: “‘Marginal gains’ for Ukraine in major eastern cities could offer the US ‘great leverage in peace negotiations’ with the Kremlin”.

Little Harriet, one might add by way of background, is styled as “an international news reporter, specialising in human rights’ abuses, violence against women, and the refugee crisis”. This is, of course, just the sort of journalist we need explaining the complexities of the Ukrainian military position.

Anyhow, la Barber tells us that Ukraine’s army is finding “some rare success along the eastern front”. reclaiming key positions and inflicting “unsustainable losses” on Russian forces.

This is according to “battlefield reports”, from which we are informed that, while the frontline axis has not changed significantly, Ukrainian forces have advanced against Russian troops close to the major eastern cities of Pokrovsk and Toretsk.

Citing one unnamed “war blogger” who is closely observing the front lines, Barber tells us that “the Ukrainian armed forces are actively advancing in Toretsk, reclaiming key positions”, and there are “reports of complete encirclement of Russian occupiers in several areas”.

Toretsk, we are helpfully advised, provides a vital link for Ukraine to logistics bases in Kostiantynivka, north-west of the city, and we also learn that the attacks are reportedly being conducted with US-donated armoured vehicles.

And nor is this the full extent of the Ukrainian “success”, it seems. Counter-attacks are also being conducted near Pokrovsk – a key city for Ukrainian defences. Russia has been moving towards the city for the past year and has advanced 40km (25 miles) west since February 2024.

Last week, Ukraine announced a successful counter-attack to retake the settlement of Kotlyne, near Pokrovsk. And, with this in mind, the all-knowing Institute for the Study of War (ISW) intoned: “The year-long Russian effort to seize Pokrovsk has so far failed”.

It might help the understanding of the situation, though, if one appreciates that at the moment we are in the tail end of a season known to the wise and exceptionally clever as “winter”. In the region, it has been very cold, with snow on the ground, the soil frozen hard and the rivers and water obstacles covered in ice.

With temperatures dropping to -15°C, the normally muddy and impassable rivers have frozen over, allowing Ukrainian troops to launch surprise attacks by crossing on foot. Under normal circumstances, the river would be a natural barrier to movement, but the freezing temperatures have transformed it into a solid path for infiltration. While armoured vehicles are still too heavy and would sink in the mud, infantry forces can move quickly and stealthily.

The conditions have thus enabled Ukrainian forces to break away from established lines of attack dictated by the terrain, and mount free-ranging assaults on Russian positions, sometimes with good effect.

However, with the onset of Spring, the weather is already warming and, in a matter of a few days the thaw will be in progress, with the rasputitsa hampering mobility. Exposed Ukrainian positions will find themselves stranded, supply difficulties will multiply and active manoeuvre will cease.

The Ukrainians have made much of their successes, but as the mud season passes, the more normal routine of grinding attrition will be restored and the Russians are expected to resume their “steamroller” operations.

Nevertheless, in war, nothing is certain and accurate reports from the front have been difficult to get. But, while the Ukrainians have had their local successes, so have the Russians, and although losses have been reported, the Russians retain their traditional insensitivity to casualties and equipment losses.

It would be unwise, therefore, to read too much into fleeting Ukrainian successes, which may well be reversed with the change in weather, when the trend is one of sustained losses, as the Ukraine forces gradually yield territory.

At least, though, according to his summit remarks, Starmer admits that that the UK, France and others will work with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting and then, despite their doubling down on backing Zelensky, they intend to discuss that plan with the United States.

Thus, in the European initiative, there is more than a hint of hubris as, despite the aspirations of going it alone and forging a new European alliance, everything still depends on the response of the United States and its willingness to fall in with European plans.

In this rolling drama, however, the “fat lady” has yet to sing. In fact, the US response to the European hyperactivity has been remarkably muted, the only thing definitive standing on the table is Trump’s refusal to provide security guarantees to cover European peacekeeping forces.

Nor, according to the Wall Street Journal does it seem that the transatlantic rift is going to be solved by the industrial quantities of European rhetoric and a busy weekend of meetings. Says the WSJ “Zelensky’s path back to White House faces big hurdles”.

For those who are interested, this article sketches out the long background to the Zelensky dust-off, which takes on the mantle of a grudge-match, the “strained affairs with the Ukrainian leader” stretching back “to a single phone call in 2019”.

Trump, it appears, has long harboured suspicions of Ukraine’s political establishment. He has promoted what the WSJ calls an “unsubstantiated theory” that the Democratic National Committee was hacked in 2016 not by Russia but by a server located in Ukraine, a theory also spread by Moscow.

Trump’s early dealings with Zelensky, meanwhile, only buttressed his belief the Ukrainian president was also aligned against him personally. After Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine in 2019, Trump began pressing the new Ukrainian leader to declare an investigation into his Democratic rivals there.

More details can be read in the WSJ article, and interesting reading they make, pointing to the conclusion that the acrimony last Friday was the expression of long-standing tension between the two men, with one commentator remarking that “History is relevant because Trump remembers stuff. He remembers slights. He also remembers favours”.

We live in a strange world when history is shaped by such issues, which makes one wonder how Trump will react to being upstaged by Zelensky’s meeting with Charles. The state visit offered by Starmer was seen as something of a diplomatic coup, but the sight of a smug Zelensky shaking hands with the king (pictured) somehow seems to cheapen the offer.

If on such things depends what Starmer calls a “just and enduring peace”, then we may be in for a rough ride. As for the European pretensions, perhaps the last word (for the moment) should go to Polish PM and former Eurocrat, Donald Tusk.

Speaking before his flight to London for the European Ukraine summit, he mused: “500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians. […] Europe today lacks the belief that we are truly a global force”.

Jean Monnet might have sympathised.