Russia's invasion of Ukraine passed a grim historical milestone on 13 January: it has now lasted longer than the 1,418 days the Soviet Union spent fighting Nazi Germany in World War II, according to Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham, writing for The Conversation.
The comparison exposes a painful irony: Stalin defeated the Nazi war machine with unconditional Western backing, while Ukraine fights Putin's aggression with support that has been "inconsistent, often hesitant and at times lacklustre," Wolff argues. The allies who once ignored Stalin's atrocities to defeat Hitler now scrutinize Zelenskyy's democratic credentials while debating ammunition quantities.
What the WWII coalition had that Ukraine doesn't
After initial setbacks, the Soviets turned the tide against Nazi Germany through citizen heroism and massive American support. The US gave unconditionally, focused on one goal: defeat the aggressor.
Ukraine has shown equivalent heroism. The support has not been equivalent.
"Endless debates over what weapons systems should be delivered, in which quantities, how fast and with what conditions attached have rightly frustrated Ukrainians and their war effort," Wolff notes. "This may have become worse under Trump, but it did not start with him."
The historian observes that during World War II, Germany made multiple attempts to cut deals with Western allies to focus on fighting the Soviets. Those efforts were "consistently rebuffed." Today, a Trump-Putin deal appears "more likely than not"—one that would come "at the steep price of Ukrainian territorial concessions and the continuing threat of further Russian adventurism in Europe."
The double standard on democratic legitimacy
The West supported Stalin despite his record: using starvation as a genocide weapon against Ukrainian farmers, executing nearly the entire Polish officer corps, and conducting mass deportations of tens of millions.
Zelensky, "the democratically elected and still widely supported leader of a country defending itself against an existential threat, also has to justify constantly why he will not violate his country's constitution and sign over territory to its aggressive neighbour," Wolff writes.
Ukrainian corruption scandals, including failures that left energy infrastructure "insufficiently protected against Russian air raids," have handed critics ammunition to question whether defending Ukraine is worth taxpayer money. The corruption problem is real—but the comparison with 1940s attitudes toward Stalin reveals how differently the West weighs its allies.
Missing: a singular focus on the threat
The World War II allies made morally questionable choices supporting Stalin, but they were "driven by a keen sense of priorities and a singular focus on defeating what was at the time the gravest threat."
That focus is absent today, Wolff argues.
Trump's distractions—threats to take over Greenland from NATO ally Denmark, military operations against Venezuela, renewed threats against Iran—"stretch American resources and highlight the hypocrisy and double standards that underpin Trump's America-first approach to foreign policy."
Putin is neither Hitler nor Stalin, Wolff concludes, "but Trump is not comparable to American wartime leaders Roosevelt or Truman either, and there is no strong leader like Churchill in sight in Europe."
The war in Ukraine "is likely to mark a few more milestones of questionable achievement before there might be another opportunity to prove again that aggression never pays."
