Rt Hon Mark Francois MP is a former Minister of State and Shadow Armed Forces Minister.

Today, the third anniversary of Russia’s barbaric and illegal invasion of Ukraine comes at a time of immense geopolitical uncertainty.

The Munich Security Conference and the recent emergency summit in Paris have underscored the shifting dynamics in global security, as world leaders wrestle with how best to support Ukraine while managing internal political pressures.

Yet, despite these challenges, it is crucial to recognise one fundamental truth: Vladimir Putin has failed to achieve any of his key strategic objectives- thus far at least.

When Russian forces launched their full-scale invasion on 24 February 2022, Putin and his inner circle believed Kyiv would fall within days. Russia’s vast military machine was expected to rapidly roll through Ukrainian defences and install a puppet regime, loyal to Moscow. Yet, the bravery of the Ukrainian people, coupled with inspired leadership, turned the tide. President Zelensky, when offered a chance to be safely evacuated from his capital, to escape the Russian advance now famously replied: “

I don’t need a ride- I need ammunition!”

Fortunately, Britian had already been providing support, even before the invasion even started. The then Conservative Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, played a pivotal role in ensuring that Ukraine’s forces were properly trained under Operation ORBITAL, so they could effectively use NLAWs and anti-tank tactics more widely, when the Russian invasion came. This foresight was instrumental in the early defence of Kyiv, as waves of Russian tanks were obliterated by highly mobile Ukrainian defenders. Indeed, RUSI has published extensive analysis on how these tactical advantages helped prevent the Russian army from achieving its initial objective, which was to overrun Kyiv and kill or capture President Zelensky in the process.

One of Putin’s primary justifications for the invasion was his desire to push back against NATO expansion.

He framed the war as a defensive measure against Western encroachment, claiming that Ukraine’s growing ties with NATO threatened Russian security. However, the reality has been starkly different. Rather than weakening NATO, Putin’s aggression has strengthened and expanded its European arm.

Sweden and Finland, two historically neutral nations, have now joined the Alliance—a direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Their accession significantly strengthens NATO’s northern flank, creating additional strategic headaches for Moscow, especially in the Baltic. The very expansion he sought to prevent has now become a reality, at least in the Nordic countries.

Moreover, since the invasion in 2022, the UK, in particular, has been at the forefront of military and financial aid to Ukraine. British military assistance has now exceeded £7 billion, while total Western aid to Ukraine has surpassed £200 billion. Britian’s contribution has included Storm Shadow and Brimstone Missiles, Challenger 2 main battle tanks, AS-90 Howitzers and a large amount of both small and large caliber ammunition. Indeed, relative to the size of our Army, Britian has given more miliary kit to Ukraine than any other country, including the US. This unwavering support has ensured that Ukraine can continue resisting Russian aggression, further cementing the UK’s role as a leader in European security.

Yet, as we mark this anniversary, we must acknowledge growing concerns about the future of Western support.

The idea of brokering a so-called “peace deal” without Ukraine’s direct involvement is deeply concerning. After everything the Ukrainians have had to endure for three years (indeed for eleven years- since the first Russian invasion in 2014) it would surely be unthinkable to try and broker a peace agreement ‘above their heads.’

This is where the UK and its NATO partners must tread carefully. While it is important to maintain strong transatlantic ties, we must also be prepared to make the case for continued military support to Ukraine, ensuring that any future negotiations do not come at the expense of the sovereignty Ukraine has so bravely fought for.

Linked to this, we must also gently remind Washington that the only time NATO’s Article 5 has ever been invoked was by the United States back in 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks—and that within weeks UK Special Forces were fighting alongside their American allies hunting terrorists in the caves of Bora Bora.

President Trump, newly elected for a second term, is quite right to push European NATO nations to increase their Defence spending. The US spends approximately 3.5% of GDP on Defence (now north of $800 billion annually) whilst also seeking to deter China, including over Taiwan. So, not unnaturally, our American allies, seeing a number of NATO countries spending less than the current minimum of 2%, let alone 2.5%, expect us to collectively do more and we need to really understand this.

The war in Ukraine has also reignited the debate about Defence spending in the UK. With global threats growing more volatile, the argument for increasing spending to at least 2.5% of GDP has never been stronger, since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, the last Conservative Government had committed to spending 2.5%- and crucially, had included a timetable, by 2030 – thus allowing both MoD and industry to plan.

The UK cannot afford a government that drags its feet on Defence. Putin is watching. China is watching. Yet, Labour’s dithering over the Strategic Defence Review sends entirely the wrong signal at a time when Britain needs to project strength. The SDR project team finished their work before Christmas, yet the conclusions were apparently beyond what Labour were prepared to pay and we are now seemingly on the fourth draft of the review.

The off the record briefing which has recently broken out between No.10, the MoD, and the Treasury has only mired the review in further confusion, demonstrating serious uncertainty surrounding Labour’s Defence strategy, when our determination to bolster our defences should be at a premium. This is important not just in relation to Russia but to our fellow NATO allies, not least the United States.

This lack of clarity is not just incompetence—it is reckless.

Defence is not a political afterthought; it is a fundamental pillar of our national security. Any delay or complacency risks failing the first duty of any government: the Defence of the Realm. The lessons of Ukraine are clear: deterrence only works, if backed by credible military capability.

In summary, if we fail to hold the line now, we risk repeating the mistakes of history. Ukraine’s fight is our fight, and three years on, we must recommit ourselves to ensuring that Ukrainian democracy prevails over Russian dictatorship.

The world is becoming more dangerous, and Britain cannot afford to be caught unprepared.

The post Mark Francois: After three years we cannot let Putin claim victory over Ukraine appeared first on Conservative Home.