Politics: Zelensky in the frame

By Richard North - September 4, 2022

As a general rule, I don’t think politicians of any one country should interfere in the internal politics of another. There are obvious exceptions to this, but I wouldn’t exclude Zelensky from this rule when it comes to making comments about the UK.

The Sunday Times, however, seems to think otherwise, running an online article which echoes Johnson’s call for us to “suffer for Ukraine”, conveying Zelensky’s “exclusive” view that [the] “threat from ‘Putin the Nazi’ outweighs [the] pain of rising energy bills”.

Actually, the interview with Zelensky might be “exclusive” but the sentiments aren’t. The BBC has Olena Zelenska, Ukraine’s “first lady” belittling the suffering of Britons, telling us that while we “count pennies”, Ukrainians “count casualties”, arguing that, “if support for Ukraine was strong the crisis would be shorter”.

Both Zelenskys are, of course, comparing chalk with cheese, and president Zelensky particularly so when the print edition of The Sunday Times runs the story with the front page headline, “Energy crisis is price to avoid world war, says Zelensky”.

On the basis that what is happening in the UK and more generally in Europe would have happened anyway, and the war is just the trigger, there is no direct relationship between the events in Ukraine and British hardships, even if Zelensky is telling us that the financial hardship enveloping the UK and other western countries “is a price worth paying” to avert a new world war.

Bluntly, though, if there was a direct cause and effect relationship, and cutting support for Ukraine would bring the hardship to an end, then I personally would vote to discontinue military aid – or, at least, scale it down. I do not think the price of saving Ukraine from its current fate is worth trashing the European economy, even if some European nations are partially responsible for developments.

But, since there is no direct link between support for Ukraine and our joint predicaments, the level of aid afforded to Ukraine – whether it is increased, decreased or stays the same – is unlikely to have any material effect on the issues we are having to address in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

Thus, it is not unreasonable in my view to assert that Zelensky, in particular, is wrong to make a link between the Russian action and the current energy crisis, which he continues to do. But he is doubly so in linking the specific issues with support for the soon to be ex-prime minister Johnson, talking of the “deep bond” forged between himself and Johnson and his gratitude for the prime minister’s personal support.

Not only – in the way this is personalising the support – is this inappropriate, it may also be counter-productive. Zelensky is in danger of fracturing the bipartisan support in the UK, converting support of Ukraine into a party-political issue, linked with Johnson and his Conservative successor. If or when Labour assumes office – which may be sooner than some think – this party may be more reluctant to follow in the footsteps of a discredited former leader.

If Zelensky persists in pursuing his very public love affair with Johnson, questions may begin to be asked as to whether there is more to the relationship than meets the eye – especially as the praise lavished on Johnson seems disproportionate to the actual amount of aid provided by the UK.

For instance, more attention might be given to an article published more than three months ago in Ukraine Pravda, covering the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

Produced by a group of independent Ukrainian reporters sympathetic to the current regime, the article asserts that Johnson was instrumental in sabotaging the prospect of direct talks between Putin and Zelensky, in the context where Putin was showing signs of willingness to agree peace terms acceptable to Ukraine.

As a result of Johnson’s intervention, Zelensky is said to have increased the demands presented to the Russians, pushing Putin beyond his acceptable limits, causing Putin to break off negotiations.

The article raises the question as to whether Johnson, with serious political troubles at home over the “partygate” affair, was overly keen to perpetuate the war as a means of distracting domestic attention from his woes.

It also begs the question of whether Zelensky himself has an interest in stoking up tensions with Russia, as a means of strengthening his international status – and weakening opposition to his regime, which might become resurgent once the war has ended.

Certainly, Zelensky, through his prosecution of the war, seems to have a stronger call on foreign policy decisions made by the UK – and by the United States – than he might have if a settlement is reached, suggesting that it is firmly in Zelensky’s political interest to prolong the war, regardless of its effects on Ukraine and the rest of the world.

With flagging Western interest in the war, and political pressures intensifying as a result of the deteriorating economic position, Zelensky’s greatest concern must be that he is forced back into doing a deal with Putin which may, indirectly, end his presidential regime.

Deprived of power, reports of structural corruption, which are currently being suppressed may well re-emerge, strengthening claims that only 30 percent of military aid is making it to the front line. And this is not the only area of concern that could come back to haunt Zelensky.

On the domestic front though, both the media and politicians need to be careful about pursuing the “suffering for Ukraine” meme. Although Ukraine has had the instinctive support of the British people, concern about the economic crises is climbing up the political agenda and linkage between the issues may also erode public support for continued military action.

Already, there are fears that a hard winter will cause a surge in crime and unrest. Police forces, we are told, are braced for a rise in crime, a breakdown in public order and even corruption in their ranks this winter as they draw up emergency proposals to deal with the cost of living crisis.

This comes from a leaked national strategy paper, drawn up by police chiefs, which states that planning is under way to deal with the fallout that could result from millions of households falling into financial difficulties. The chiefs are increasingly concerned that “economic turmoil and financial instability” has “potential to drive increases in particular crime types”.

These include “acquisitive” offences, such as shoplifting, burglary and vehicle theft, as well as online fraud and blackmail, and crimes that “rely on exploiting financial vulnerability”.

The document also goes on to say that “a more complex and unpredictable risk is the chance of greater civil unrest, as a response to prolonged and painful economic pressure”. A senior officer at one force in the north of England told a local MP that without significant government intervention they feared a return to the febrile conditions that led to the London riots in 2011.

What the report doesn’t seem to say is that much may depend on the attitude of the energy suppliers to domestic payment defaulters. If they aggressively pursue a policy of imposing pre-payment meters, thereby forcing people to “self-disconnect” because they cannot afford to feed the meter, then their action alone could precipitate riots.

If we witness anything close to the scale of the London riots, and the linkage continues to be reinforced between economic hardship and Ukraine, support for the war is likely to evaporate – more so if the UK is unable to avoid blackouts, which seems increasingly likely.

And that brings home a very good reason why foreign politicians such as Zelensky should not meddle in British politics. They know not what they do: unaware of the nuances and implications of their claims, they can do themselves more harm than good.