The Tribune

“HOW incredibly brave that man is.” It has been reported in the UK press that these words were picked up on a microphone used by Prime Minister Boris Johnson but which had not been switched off after he had spoken at a news conference. In the appalling circumstances of Russia’s invasion, there have been numerous tributes to the courage of Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. But Mr Johnson’s remark about him was all the more powerful and genuine for being made spontaneously and in private. It is also significant in the context of what has apparently become a genuine rapport between the two leaders who have had a good deal of contact starting well before the invasion nearly three weeks ago.

Against this background, it might be interesting to give some publicity to President Zelensky’s historic address last week via a video link to Britain’s House of Commons. It was the first time any foreign leader had spoken to the House of Commons directly and it was clear that every parliamentarian wanted to hear from the beleaguered president.

The chamber was packed with MPs crammed in to every corner and with members of the House of Lords occupying the public gallery. Zelensky’s address was projected on to big screens with simultaneous translation. Dressed in an olive green military T-shirt, he sat alone in Kyiv where, despite many assassination attempts, he has remained throughout the crisis. The President recounted in detail what had happened to his country since the invasion. In addition to the Russian attacks on military targets, he described the bombing of schools, destruction of churches, shelling of a children’s hospital and the general chaos and mayhem of war resulting in food and water shortages as well as the resulting massive refugee problem, with civilians fleeing in huge numbers.

He thanked the UK for its support as one of the leading suppliers of weapons and military equipment together with humanitarian aid and urged even tougher sanctions; and he repeated his request for a no-fly zone which Western nations have so far refused because of the danger of a direct NATO military confrontation with the Russians that could lead to another World War. He also cleverly evoked Winston Churchill’s famous speech in 1940 about fighting on the beaches and never surrendering by saying “We will fight in the forests, on the shores, in the streets… until the end, whatever the cost” – and he quoted Shakespeare in posing the question “to be or not to be” and answering firmly that Ukraine had decided “to be free”.

This was a powerful and poignant speech which left MPs visibly moved. It earned a standing ovation and praise from all parties as they put aside partisanship in wholeheartedly supporting Ukraine in its hour of need. They had already seen that the fierce resistance from both regular military forces and civilian volunteers had slowed down the Russians’ advance and they had watched with awe and admiration the amazing courage and tenacity of the Ukrainian people in the face of overwhelming odds.

Now they saw President Zelensky exuding defiance and strength while his country’s democracy and freedom and his own life were in such danger. This was surely a powerful lesson in leadership, bravery and integrity by a man who is now being widely called “transformational” and the conscience of the free world.

In response, Boris Johnson spoke emotionally and forcefully - and, to my eye, displayed the gravitas required of a prime minister - in saying that in “a great European capital, now within range of Russian guns, President Volodymyr Zelensky is standing firm for democracy and freedom” and “I believe he has moved the hearts of everybody in this House”. He pledged the UK would continue to supply weapons and to provide diplomatic, humanitarian and economic support – and he undertook to sort out bureaucratic problems over visas for refugees.

The Ukrainian President has similarly addressed lawmakers in the US and in the European Parliament and it is important that the West is showing such unity in reaction to one man’s deranged ego that has brought suffering to millions. Putin has succeeded in upsetting most of the rest of the world, and the cost of the conflict and its widespread damaging effects will be incalculable. As the war images show unspeakable barbarity and the instances of war crimes stack up, many hope he and his cronies will ultimately be forced to face justice in one way or another.

Meanwhile, as it steps up attacks in the hitherto relatively unaffected western part of the country near the border with Poland, Russia has said it will not tolerate the supply of weapons to Ukraine through that area. This is a serious escalation which is causing concern in Poland as a member of NATO. There is also a continuing threat of the use of WMD by the Russians which could be a red line for the West. But, despite everything, the defiant Ukrainians continue their heroic struggle.

MOST AVOIDABLE CONFLICT IN MODERN HISTORY

Such is the inherent importance of the war in Ukraine which could engulf the rest of Europe – if not even the wider world – it is hard to move away from the issue. On the thesis that one needs to know one’s enemy in order to try to anticipate his next move, commentators are now examining anew Putin’s motivation in launching this terrible conflict.

It is almost a truism that war is fundamentally evil and should be avoided - unless there is no alternative as when Britain was forced to declare war on Germany after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. At that point he had to be stopped and this marked the outbreak of the Second World War. But it is, of course, generally accepted that war should only be used as a last resort when diplomacy has failed and negotiation has been exhausted.

By invading Ukraine, Putin violated the sovereignty of an independent state and the UN Charter. Nothing condones or justifies the indiscriminate carnage and destruction – with human suffering on a terrible scale - that he is inflicting on what he claims are his own people. His actions have created what he was trying to prevent; namely, the strengthening of NATO on his borders. Even if he succeeds militarily in occupying the country after grinding down the opposition, there is now no chance of winning over the hearts and minds of the proud and resilient people of Ukraine and bringing them back into Russia’s sphere of influence.

So, when there were still negotiating options in dealing with Russia’s concerns, what induced him to unleash an ultimately unwinnable war?

The answer lies in the history of NATO and the attitude of US policy-makers in the 1990s. Historians describe how, after the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, policy-makers in the US thought there was only room for one superpower and that the emergence of any new rival should be prevented. The proponents of this were none other than the predecessors of the neo-conservatives notoriously responsible for the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Their objective was to impose American values worldwide without proper consideration of historical and cultural differences. Moreover, NATO’s eastward expansion was felt by many to be a folly that would create a backlash from Moscow. A Google search reveals that in 1997 the US ambassador in Moscow warned that NATO expansion was “the most profound strategic blunder, encouraging a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat since the USSR collapsed”. So, even though it did not materialize, any idea of bringing Ukraine into NATO would have been seen by Moscow as a direct challenge to Russian interests.

All this is part of a larger policy debate and does not bear further analysis here – and, of course, none of it can justify the horrors of the current conflict in Ukraine. But many believe that a proper understanding of the issue and its historical background are necessary in order to search for a diplomatic solution.

It is self-evident that the war has been a catastrophe for Ukraine – a cataclysmic event that is far from over. It is said that all wars end with a negotiated settlement. That could leave Crimea and the eastern breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk under Russian control. But, if the fighting can now be brought to an end through negotiation, it is possible Ukraine could emerge stronger in the long-term. By contrast, the outcome will be worse for Russia as a result of the stringent sanctions, its international isolation and its worldwide condemnation as a pariah state. But such thoughts are premature as the crisis is clearly far from over, with some commentators predicting the situation will become worse before any ultimate resolution.

EBB AND FLOW OF POLITICAL FORTUNES

“Boris’ woes are ancient history.” This was a recent headline in the UK press. It referred, of course, to what is being seen as the British Prime Minister’s amazing escape from the parlous position he found himself in barely a month ago when he was clinging to power by his fingertips following a decision by the Metropolitan Police to investigate his office’s party culture during the coronavirus lockdown.

The Ukraine crisis has meant that calls from the Labour opposition for Mr Johnson’s resignation over “party gate” have been put on hold for now. While some in the Labour Party are saying that defending democracy abroad should not mean the PM can be allowed to get away with wrongdoing at home, the Labour leader has stressed the importance of political unity in dealing with the crisis. Thus, the Prime Minister should be left alone for the time being to concentrate on the job in hand.

There is no doubt that Boris Johnson has taken advantage of that opportunity and risen to the occasion in responding to Putin. The consensus in Britain appears to be that he has been handling an extremely difficult situation very well. He has shown effective leadership at home and spoken and acted with authority on the international stage. Most recently, Labour’s lead in the polls has shrunk while the Tories are clawing back ground as their leader’s stock has been rising. His stirring rhetoric during the House of Commons debate immediately after the Russian invasion on February 24 matched the seriousness and magnitude of the moment; and he was listened to in respectful silence by a packed chamber.

People have seen that the British Prime Minister has demonstrated he can be a leader on the world stage by rallying global opinion against Putin, pushing for tough sanctions and supporting reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank — and more and more are saying his performance shows the UK still has substantial influence and remains an international player in defending democracy alongside the US and EU.

The question now is whether all this will be enough to recharge and rescue the PM’s leadership. Are his woes really ancient history or has he just earned a reprieve? Only time will tell.