Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

World of Trouble

Ukraine cannot win against Russia, warns British Field Marshal

Field Marshal Lord Richards tells The Independent’s Sam Kiley that Ukraine has been given false hope by its Western allies and cannot triumph against Russia unless Nato forces join fight

Sunday 19 October 2025 10:52 BST
465Comments
Video Player Placeholder
0 of 59 minutes, 36 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Next Up
King Charles waves as he arrives for Easter Sunday church service in Windsor
00:38
00:14
59:22
59:36
 
This video file cannot be played.(Error Code: 233011)
Close
World of Trouble: Ukraine cannot win against Russia, warns British Field Marshal

Ukraine cannot win its war with Russia and should negotiate peace terms with the Kremlin, according to Britain’s most senior army officer.

Field Marshal Lord Richards said Kyiv will not be able to drive Vladimir Putin’s soldiers out of Ukraine without the help of Nato forces – who won’t get involved on the ground.

Lord Richards, who was promoted to the UK military’s most senior “five-star” rank earlier this year and led Nato forces during their troop surge in Afghanistan, said Ukraine’s allies have failed Kyiv.

“What we have done in the case of Ukraine is encourage Ukraine to fight, but not given them the means to win,” the former chief of the defence staff told The Independent’s podcast World of Trouble.

Field Marshal Lord Richards, pictured with the Gurkas in 2009
Field Marshal Lord Richards, pictured with the Gurkas in 2009 (MoD)

Reflecting on Ukraine’s chances of success against Russia, he said: “My view is that they would not win.”

“Could not win, even with the right resources?” he was asked.

“No,” he replied.

Pressed further by The Independent, he was asked: “ Even with the right resources?”

“No, they haven’t got the manpower,” the former commando said.

The field marshal’s intervention came after Volodymyr Zelensky flew to Washington DC to meet Donald Trump to try to persuade him to give Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The war with Russia has now ground on for more than three years, with incremental gains on each side as the conflict is increasingly played out via drone warfare.

But Zelensky’s plans to pressure Trump appear to have been thwarted by Vladimir Putin, who spoke to the US president hours before his White House meeting with the Ukrainian leader.

At a packed press conference, Trump appeared reluctant to give up American weapons, while retaining a cordial tone with Zelensky – admittedly a far cry from where things were in February. The US president stressed his own country’s needs to maintain stockpiles.

Zelensky at the White House with Trump on 17 October
Zelensky at the White House with Trump on 17 October (AP)

Zelensky said very little, except to politely suggest Ukraine could offer up its drone technology in an exchange agreement. Trump seemed open to the idea.

Coming away from the summit, Zelensky said Trump had not said “no” to the idea of Tomahawks – but, for today, he did not say “yes”, either.

In his first long-form podcast interview, Lord Richards, the only British officer to have commanded massed US troops at war since 1945, said the outlook for Ukraine was not good.

“Unless we were to go in with them – which we won’t do because Ukraine is not an existential issue for us. It clearly is for the Russians, by the way,” he said on World of Trouble.

“We’ve decided because it’s not an existential issue, we will not go to war. We are, you can argue – and I absolutely accept it – in some sort of hybrid war [with Russia]. But that’s not the same as a shooting war in which our soldiers are dying in large numbers.

“Despite our attraction for all they’ve achieved and our genuine affections for so many Ukrainians, I’m just still in this school that says this is not in our vital national interests.

“My instinct is that the best Ukraine can do, and you already see President Zelensky, who’s an inspirational leader … the best they can do is a sort of a score draw.”

Lord Richards spoke frankly about Ukraine and world affairs during his podcast with Sam Kiley
Lord Richards spoke frankly about Ukraine and world affairs during his podcast with Sam Kiley (The Independent)

Lord Richards’s pessimistic assessment contradicts recent statements from Trump who had appeared to shift his view of Ukraine from insisting that Kyiv did not hold any cards – to saying Putin could not win.

“I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form,” Trump wrote on social media. “With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, Nato, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option.

“Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like ‘a paper tiger’.”

Trump has routinely changed his stance on Ukraine, previously cutting military aid to Kyiv altogether, forcing a painful minerals-for-weapons deal on Kyiv and reducing US help to an intelligence feed only.

This week he appeared to swing back behind Putin again – agreeing to a summit with the Russian leader in pro-Kremlin Hungary under Viktor Orban but without the presence of Zelensky.

He blamed it on the fact that Putin and Zelensky “don’t get along too well” and described himself as the “mediator” president.

Trump has made repeated efforts to secure a ceasefire and even invited Putin to Alaska for a summit in August, which ended in American humiliation.

Lord Richards, who led Britain’s interventions in Sierra Leone and East Timor as a brigadier and later argued against the UK’s part in the American-led invasion of Iraq, backed the former US General Mark Milley, who suggested back in November 2022 that Ukraine should negotiate with Russia.

In a wide-ranging interview about his military life, the field marshal revealed that although his career had been stellar, there were times when he fell foul of “the establishment” and was often out of step with his military and political masters.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai (R) presents a medal to General Richards in his then-role as Commander of NATO International Security Assistance Force, Kabul, 2007
Afghan president Hamid Karzai (R) presents a medal to General Richards in his then-role as Commander of NATO International Security Assistance Force, Kabul, 2007 (AFP/Getty)

As a major general and deputy head of the army under General Sir Mike Jackson, he said it was clear to him that Tony Blair’s government was lying about its claims that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Alongside other senior officers, he questioned the legality of the UK’s decision to join US forces in invading Iraq in 2003.

Before the British joined the invasion, Blair presented parliament with an intelligence dossier which claimed the Iraqi dictator was developing a nuclear weapon.

Derided since as the “dodgy dossier” for its unfounded claims, it caused horror at the time among senior officers who had access to the real intelligence.

“I and others encouraged the chief of defence staff to query whether this was legal and what was the basis of this intelligence,” said Lord Richards.

“I do remember one officer – who I won’t name but was on the intelligence side – saying, ‘Don’t worry. We’ll find something to put.’ Yeah, ‘don't worry. We’ll find something about that. We’ll justify what we were doing’.

“I went back to say to Mike Jackson, ‘This stinks.’”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

465Comments

Conversation

|

Top Comments

    1. Comment by Hungubwe.

      It seems to me that people (and even high-ranking officers) get confused over the term "winning". Of course Ukraine can't "win" against Russia in the sense of defeating them in pitched battles - though they have won a few. However there are many examples in history - and recent ones too (Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Mozambique, Angola, Namibia) - of occupying armies which have been withdrawn undefeated because it is no longer political to keep them there. Add to that, the drain on Russia's economy and demographics of this war, which is likely to seem increasingly pointless given that Russia is the biggest country in the world (do they need more land?) with huge natural resources (but not enough people). Ukraine is also making strides with technology and some super-smart and devastating tactics, as others have noted. Yes, they can win, even if they can't defeat Russia. It sounds illogical but it isn't.

    2. Comment by Adrian Fox.

      The Field Marshall really should remember the situation in 1939 when it was clear to almost everybody in the UK and in Europe and the wider world that Britain could NOT ever win the war against Hitler and Germany.

      Of course we did get help from the USA and the Empire after a number of years, but that should be the case for the Ukraine too with Europe and the USA defending it.

      You may defeat a country on the ground but you will never subdue a people entirely. Neither in Palestine nor in all the other places where people are enslaved will fascist dictatorship win out in the long term. Authoritarian rule eventually requires so many resources to enforce its rule that it collapses from the inside. (Though admittedly that can take decades)

    3. Comment by Varus.

      “We’ve decided because it’s not an existential issue, we will not go to war".

      It is in our collective national security interest to ensure that Ukraine is provided the resources to defeat Russia.

      This might be done in part on the battlefield, but from a strategic sense in making sure they cannot continue the war logistically.

      This is a fight we can and should participate in. Every Ukrainian strike on a Russian oil & gas infrastructure we provide intelligence on, every Russian tanker taken off the seas, every Western company that is brought to task for KNOWINGLY providing materials to Russia through intermediaries, brings this war closer to a just end.

      It also deters other autocrats, like Xi, from starting another war over Taiwan and deters the Russian loving MAGA crowd in my own country.

      This is the great battle of OUR time. If we want to stop further ones from breaking out by giving permission to autocrats that borders are open to redraw at their choice, I would argue it is vital to ensure Ukraine wins this war.

    4. Comment by Tmcb.

      The 'dodgy dossier' was claimed by most, if not all, Iraq war critics as the demonstrable lie behind the decision to invade Iraq, but that's not what I recall. Whatever the rights and wrongs (and I would certainly agree there were colossal mistakes in the aftermath of the war), the reasons I recall for ousting the Saddam regime were:

      1. He had used WMD to attempt genocide of the Kurds

      2. He had retained the capability to develop WMD, including nuclear weapons (as confirmed after the invasion).

      3. He was unwilling to cooperate fully with the UN inspection regime to eliminate the possibility of developing more WMD.

      The Iraq War quickly proved to be a disaster due to political mishandling following the invasion, which itself was a remarkable military success. However, critics often overlook what might have developed if the war had not occurred, which would be the more accurate comparison

    5. Comment by ppundit.

      Correction, Russia has already lost, over a million soldier's lives.

      It's President Putin that can never be defeated, because he insists in sending drone-fodder to the front line, to be killed, ensuring for one thing that those soldiers can't remove him from power in this world, and because his regime has full control of the media, and because his police arrest anyone who demonstrates against or even speaks out against this less than brilliant wonderful wonderful war.

      Can you imagine, what would happen in American politics, if a million soldiers were sacrificed on the altar of Trump's regime, because he wanted to annex Canada?

      The same can't happen in Russia. They have a stranglehold on the minds and bodies of their citizens, who have been used to it for centuries.

      Quite apart from the fact that encouraging an evil regime is bad policy and politics, it's, to say the least, bad strategically and militarily for Europe, and the UK.

      So, we must support Ukraine, if only to keep Russia bogged down and emasculated in a war it also cannot win.

      It's not up to us to decide the terms of peace, and, in many ways, as I've already indicated, it's advantageous for Europe and the UK to enable and continue this war against Russia.

      So, until and when both sides find that it's politically unacceptable at home not to choose peace, the slaughter is more than likely to continue.

    6. Comment by chrisw27.

      It wasn't obvious that Ukrainians couldn't win in the first year of the war. We didn't know what political battles were going on in the Kremlin or what kind of difficulties conscription would pose for Putin. We didn't know how badly sanctions would affect Russia and what the political fallout from that would be. We weren't wrong to be cautiously optimistic back then.

      But Russia got through all that and Ukraine's big surge in the second year got nowhere. It's been hard to be too optimistic about Ukraine's prospects since.

      But at the same time we don't want to show weakness against Putin, or he might start testing NATO by threatening the Baltic states. We don't want a European version of the Cuban Missile crisis.

      Ukraine has to be sorted out with a peace deal but it cannot give Putin everything he wants. Which means that Putin may prefer to continue the war. So we may have to continue supplying Ukraine with weapons for quite a while longer. I don't think there are any quick fixes here.

    7. Comment by Ajames.

      Russia claims they've taken 5000 square km this year. It sounds impressive until you realise that's only 0.08% of Ukraine. At that rate it's touch and go whether they'll even gain 1% in one year of fighting.

      In the past it was thought Russia could take the UK within weeks. But now they're struggling against a country with no tanks, aircraft, or missiles. And the majority of the army as conscripts.

      Trump is correct. Russia has become a paper tiger. I don't know why we're giving them so much respect. With proper NATO weapons, Ukraine should be able to finish them off.

    8. Comment by Brad.

      At the Battle of Gaugamela, Alexander didn't have the numbers. Darius III had everything. The numbers, the tactics, refined over decades of waging war, 'immortals' even, but in all of this he missed one thing;

      The spirit.

      When alexander rallied his troops, Darius sought the safety of the back. Where Alexander attacked, Darrius sought safety by rallying troops around him. Him being important! Where Alexander's men wanted to die for Macedonia and Alexander. Darrius his army were mostly vassals and hired guns. led by a decadent corrupt General Staff who brought women to the battlefield for personal pleasure.

      Does this remind you of another war?

      Where soldiers want to die for their Country, where a leader wants ammunition instead of plane out? Opposite an army without a cause. An army of mercenaries led by a corrupt General Staff, a leader constantly seeking the safety of his bunker? Even wearing a bullet prove vest when talking to his inner circle.

      Field Marshall Lord Richards is to be reminded that war is about more than numbers. It is about the willingness to fight, a reason to fight for. And this Ukraine now being able to take the war into Russia, getting Western gear, funding gives Ukraine more than the odds in this by Russia started Imperial war.

    9. Comment by Ajames.

      However, even without tanks, aircraft, missiles etc Ukraine has limited Russia to only 20% of the land in almost four years of conflict. And even by their own estimates, Russia has only managed to take less than 1% this year. So imagine what Ukraine could achieve will the full NATO resources.

      Ukraine would definitely be an asset to NATO if they were allowed to join. But even if this isn't possible, we should definitely recruit soldier from Ukraine after the war ends. The British army is on a recruitment drive anyway.

    10. Comment by Suusi M-B.

      You heard it from someone with access to the real intelligence Not Ukraine's press releases. The question is how badly do you want the Ukraine to loose. Europe has destroyed its own economies. We have a triple whammy of the worst Brexit deal possible, Austerity and Sanctions.

      In Business this is called throwing good money after bad. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the outcome.

      The Ukraine's best bet is recognising this and doing a deal now. The Z man is caught between the Rock of reality and the hard place of the Ukraine's ultra nationalists and their western backers.

      It goes back to his former deputies original question does he want to lose just 4 regions now or 9 in a years time?

    Thank you for registering

    Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in