Peter Hitchens, writing in the Daily Mail, said a recent interview with outgoing UK Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Tony Radakin revealed why, in his view, Western “elites” may prefer the war in Ukraine to continue for years.
Hitchens singled out remarks Radakin made during a BBC interview on Friday in which the admiral described the conflict as "a disaster for Russia," citing Moscow’s failure to seize more territory or capture Kyiv. Hitchens said the comment — and the manner in which it was reported — showed an unwillingness among officials and commentators to acknowledge other costs of the fighting.
Hitchens, a long-standing Daily Mail columnist, framed Radakin’s profile in his column by noting the admiral’s legal and academic qualifications and his tenure as head of Britain’s armed forces. He wrote that Radakin’s assessment of the battlefield outcome was "an interesting argument," but added that there was a stronger case to be made that the war had been a disaster in other respects.
In the column Hitchens accused political and media elites of cultivating a narrative that emphasizes military setbacks for Russia while downplaying the wider implications of a protracted conflict, including economic strains, geopolitical risks and human costs. He also criticised the BBC interviewer, Nick Robinson, for referring to the Russian military as the "Red Army," calling the reference anachronistic.
Radakin, who is stepping down from the post of chief of the defence staff, has in recent months been a prominent voice in public discussion about Western support for Ukraine and the long-term implications of the war. His description of the conflict as a setback for Russia reflects one strand of Western strategic assessment that highlights Moscow’s operational difficulties since its full-scale invasion in 2022.
Hitchens’s column places those remarks in a broader critique of Western policy, arguing that some policymakers and commentators have incentives to present the conflict in terms that justify continued engagement and materiel support. He contended that this framing can obscure other outcomes of the war and the possibility that its continuation serves strategic or political interests in allied capitals.
Analysts and commentators in the United Kingdom and internationally remain divided over the long-term trajectory of the war, the costs of continued support for Ukraine, and the objectives Western governments should pursue. Military leaders such as Radakin have stressed the importance of sustaining Ukraine’s capacity to defend itself, while others in the public sphere have questioned the duration and form of Western involvement.
Hitchens’s column did not set out a policy prescription but argued that readers should be sceptical of a simple narrative that treats the conflict solely as a Russian strategic failure. He called for fuller public debate on the aims, costs and likely duration of Western engagement in Ukraine.
Responses from government officials, the Ministry of Defence or the BBC to the claims in Hitchens’s column were not included in his piece. The exchange illustrates the contested nature of public discussion in Britain about the war in Ukraine and the degree to which statements by senior military figures can shape political and media narratives.