Ukraine: Johnson the liability

By Richard North - June 29, 2022

Marina Hyde makes some good points in her current column about Johnson (the “treehouse guy”) and his support for Ukraine.

Johnson, she observes “has never received a great bounce for his leadership on Ukraine”. Many held a view along the lines of “he did what any of us would have done”. But she also adds a reference to a report from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) which suggests that perception is changing, and not to the advantage of the prime minister.

I missed the report at the time it was published (nearly a fortnight ago) but its findings are interesting and illustrate trends which are probably still valid, if not actually strengthening.

The initial finding is that European public opinion in the first 100 days of Russia’s war on Ukraine, helped to solidify Europe’s political response. But a ECFR poll now suggests that public sentiment is diverging. The Council believes this could weaken the political unity.

In essence, the research shows that, while respondents surveyed across ten European counties displayed great solidarity with Ukraine and supported sanctions against Russia, they were split about the long-term goals.

The split will come as no great surprise to this blog’s readers. It has some 35 percent supporting a “peace” camp, where people want the war to end as soon as possible. At the other end of the spectrum is the “justice” camp which comprises the 25 percent who believe that the more pressing goal is to punish Russia.

In all countries, apart from Poland, the “peace” camp is larger than the “justice” camp. The greater worry is the cost of economic sanctions and the threat of nuclear escalation.

Interestingly, unless something dramatically changes, they will oppose a long and protracted war. And only in Poland, Germany, Sweden, and Finland is there substantial public support for boosting military spending.

On this, the ECFR – wedded to democratic principles as always – offers advice on how to manipulate public opinion. Governments, it says, will need to find a new language to bridge the gap between these emerging camps, in order to strengthen European unity and avoid polarisation between and within countries. The key, it says, will be to present arms deliveries and sanctions as part of a defensive war.

This, presumably, is why Zelensky is so keen to push the idea that the Russian aggression is not limited to Ukraine and that, if Putin is allowed to prevail, he will come after Nato countries. That positions Ukraine as the heroic bastion, protecting the rest of Europe.

As to UK sentiment, this country is included in the ECFR report, but we also have a more recent YouGov poll which seems to say much the same thing and offers some more detail.

The headline finding of this poll is that Britons continue to support sanctions, but “are wary of costs at home”. Specifically, the majority oppose further sanctions on Russia if it means a significant increase in energy prices (by 46-38 percent) while there is also a majority opposing higher taxes (44-41 percent) to cover increased defence costs.

Overall, there is also an indication that, while concern over the conflict remains high, that level of concern is declining. In February, 43 percent claimed to be “very worried” by the invasion, but this has all but halved, standing now at 22 percent.

Here, the CGS, General Sanders, is quick to align himself with the Zelensky thesis, telling us Russia will most likely emerge from the war in Ukraine as an “even greater threat” to European security. His belief is that Russia’s “resilience” is such that it could suffer the loss of any number of campaigns, battles and engagements but then “regenerate and still ultimately prevail”.

Given Putin’s ambition to restore the lands of “historic Russia”, Sanders says, any respite would be “temporary and the threat would become even more acute” after Russia replenishes its capabilities after defeats in Ukraine.

Sanders has it that soldiers and officers of all ranks must be prepared to “fight and win” to prevent the spread of war in Europe. He says he has never seen such a clear threat to peace and democracy as the “brutal aggression” of Putin, describing it as “our 1937 moment”. The British Army “must act rapidly” to ensure the UK is not drawn into a war because it failed to stop Russian expansion, he says.

Johnson, although not quite as strident, appears to be playing a similar game, asserting that “we [Nato] are working very hard to confine this to Ukraine”. Putin and the Kremlin, on the other hand, were “going to try to widen the conflict and say that this is something to do between Nato and Russia”. Thus, Johnson’s stance is that the West and the friends of Ukraine are giving Ukraine the support they need.

Thus, according to The Times, Johnson feels sufficiently secure on the funding issue to pledge “billions more” on defence, with an announcement expected when he arrives in Madrid for the Nato summit.

Given that the British Army would probably have difficulty taking on the Vatican in a fair fight, there is certainly a need for more spending, although experience tells us that throwing money at the MoD doesn’t necessarily lead to enhanced capabilities – most recently evidenced by the Ajax debacle.

What is not clear at all is whether any increased defence spending would go anywhere near Ukraine, or whether it would just add to the MoD spaff fund, while Ukrainian troops continue to battle on with second-hand kit, when indeed they get any at all.

But what is even less clear is whether the “billions more” on defence, as described by The Times, is in fact extra spending at all. The Telegraph seems to be suggesting that the Johnson statement will amount to a declaration that he is already spending billions more than the Nato 2 percent minimum. No extra money is involved.

The Guardian muddies the water still further, reporting that Johnson is likely to ditch his manifesto commitment to increase defence spending by inflation plus half a percent per year. With that target gone, spending in real terms is set to decline.

Nevertheless, it is rather telling that the UK is still ranked as the world’s third-highest spender on defence, after the United States and China, but ahead of India and Russia. Yet all we have to show for the money is an army that could not even field a single division, where horses outnumber tanks, and you wouldn’t even need to take your socks off to count the number of functional artillery pieces.

What is worrying, therefore, is that we have the worst of all possible worlds, where the Ukrainians go down for the lack of adequate kit, while the MoD continues to fritter away its already generous funds, buying up lots more shiny toys which look good on the inventory, but which ultimately fail to function, or add significantly to our defence capabilities.

A weary and cynical voting population is probably all too well aware of this dynamic, which means the overall tolerance for increased spending on the Ukraine war is unlikely to improve and attempts by Johnson to milk the crisis for his own political gain will likely be unsuccessful.

That, as Marina Hyde remarks, could leave Johnson in trouble. Acting like a world statesman might be the right thing to do, she says – though actually being one is obviously better. But even that could well end up a liability for a man increasingly cemented in the public imagination as selfish and feckless.

People might wonder, she posits, why they are making sacrifices, and cast Ukraine as yet another of Johnson’s vanity projects. And there is the ultimate downside for Zelensky’s close relationship with the Oaf. Rather than benefit from his support, Johnson will drag them down to his level, as he does with everything else he touches, filling the air with empty promises and delivering nothing.

Even the Telegraph is picking up on this, with the paper’s Allison Pearson suggesting that waiting for Johnson to deliver is “like waiting all morning for Parcelforce only to discover the ratbags have posted a card through the door saying: ‘We attempted delivery, but you weren’t in’”.

Zelensky may already have a stack of those cards.