As with Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson senses destiny in Ukraine war

For Johnson, the war in Ukraine is a chance to emulate his hero, Winston Churchill, on who Johnson wrote a book. The British Prime Minister also wants to show that Brexit has unleashed his vision of a “Global Britain.”

This conflict of destinies is reverberating far beyond Ukraine’s own borders. Indeed, the animus between Britain and Russia is now at levels perhaps not seen since the pre-Gorbachev era of the Cold War. Not long ago, things were far friendlier.

Until 2021, Johnson was viewed positively in the Kremlin. In 2017, Johnson visited Moscow while serving as Foreign Secretary. The former mayor of London had also declared that he was a “Russophile, a committed Russophile.” Becoming the prime minister in 2019, Johnson continued the Conservative Party’s embrace of Russian finance in London. This financial influence has allowed Putin’s cronies to establish safe havens for their wealth, bolster their influence in British politics, and pay lawyers, such as Harbottle & Lewis, to silence journalists. Reveling in Russian donations, Johnson’s Conservatives limited security service efforts to counter the Kremlin and associated organized crime activity.

Putin’s escalation against Ukraine fundamentally shifted Johnson’s calculus.

In June 2021, Johnson shocked the world by boldly sending a British warship within 12 miles (the sovereign territorial limit) of Russian-occupied Crimea. The move sparked outrage in Moscow. It also drew a significant contrast with President Joe Biden’s Russia policy. Not only did Biden refuse to replicate Britain’s naval activity, but he also canceled U.S. Navy deployments to the Black Sea. In contrast to the Trump administration’s military posture, Biden pressured the Pentagon to reduce its deterrent activity near Russian borders.

Since the war began, Johnson has doubled down on his military support for Ukraine.

London essentially expended its reserves of light anti-tank missiles, sending thousands of its NLAW systems to Kyiv before the war began. Britain has also added sensitive cyber, anti-ship, and anti-air systems to Ukraine’s portfolio. Although I cannot confirm reports that British special forces are in Ukraine, I also understand that Britain kept intelligence officers there, even as most U.S. personnel were withdrawn. Numerous Western security officials have told me that Britain is taking the lead in Ukraine’s support, contrasting Johnson’s approach with the more risk-averse Biden administration. Although they are reluctant to criticize Biden, Ukrainian officials hint that Johnson is their most reliable ally.

Johnson revels in his role as a figurehead of support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration. The prime minister’s long-identified penchant for pageantry is also finding satisfaction. Johnson’s recent walking tour through Kyiv, for example, allowed him to emulate Churchill’s wartime strolls through Blitz-hit London. Again, Biden’s absence stands in notable contrast.

Still, Johnson has broader political calculations in play.

For one, his robust support for Ukraine is popular in Britain. And it comes at an opportune time, as Johnson faces heavy criticism for his so-called “Partygate” scandal of holding parties at his Downing Street office residence during 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns. Johnson has had to pay at least one police fine as a result of these parties.

At a political level, Johnson sees Ukraine as a crucial test of Britain’s viability as a global power post-Brexit. Britain’s January 2020 withdrawal from the European Union was seen by many around the world as the moment when Britain ceased to become a big player. Johnson has sought to challenge that understanding with global investment tours and the deployment of a new aircraft carrier to the South China Sea. Yet this deployment evinces the tensions inherent to Brexit. Johnson remains cautious about China, resisting pressure from Washington to join greater efforts to constrain China’s imperial adventurism. During its aircraft carrier deployment, for example, the Royal Navy did not conduct a naval transit of the Taiwan strait or within 12 miles of Chinese occupied reefs. While Johnson wants to show Britain is a big player, he fears losing trade influence with Beijing. Trade relations beyond Europe have greater importance for London post-Brexit.

Ukraine, then, offers Johnson an easier chance to emulate his hero and show Britain is capable of global leadership. As Johnson drives by Churchill’s famous statue outside Parliament, one wonders whether he sees himself in Churchill’s famous words on the outbreak of the Second World War: “I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.”

Put simply, Johnson seems to see Ukraine as his 1940 moment.