Could Russia’s Aggression Save Boris Johnson’s Premiership?

W hen he was elected three years ago, many doubted that former comic actor Volodymyr Zelensky had what it took to lead Ukraine. Now, his courage and leadership in the face of the Russian invasion have inspired the West. But Zelensky is not the only politician whose reputation has improved. Boris Johnson, the prime minister of the United Kingdom — whose leadership hung in the balance only weeks ago — is angling for the supporting role to Europe’s newfound hero. If he pulls it off, he may save his premiership.

Britain’s Met police are investigating the prime minister for his alleged breach of Covid rules (which were criminally enforced). The police’s findings are expected to be issued in the next few weeks, after which the civil servant, Sue Gray, will be able to publish her full report. The redacted version of Gray’s report has already caused Johnson serious political damage. However, with the scenes of carnage emerging from Ukraine’s major cities, “Partygate” has taken a back seat. Johnson’s scandalous attendance at multiple parties during lockdown looks a lot less scandalous compared with Vladimir Putin’s war crimes.

The majority of Brits see Russia as a serious threat, according to the most recent YouGov poll. Even the House of Commons is united on the Russian atrocities in Ukraine. Parliament does not allow applause in its chambers but made an exception for the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.K. Lawmakers of every party put aside their differences and gave him a standing ovation as a sign of solidarity. Meanwhile, Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, threatened to expel eleven members of Parliament from his own party if they did not retract their Stop the War Coalition statement that the British government and NATO had provoked Putin. All of them complied.

This unprecedented unity is an opportunity for Johnson who, like Zelensky, is a charismatic communicator with a simple message. There is, Johnson explains, an “unfolding disaster in the European continent,” one that can be understood with moral certainty. War is bigger than politics. In a surprise visit to the Ukrainian Cathedral of the Holy Family in London, Johnson told the congregation that “never in all my memory of politics and international affairs have I seen so clear a distinction between right and wrong, between good and evil, between light and dark.” He continued: “The candle of freedom may burn low in Ukraine. . . . I want you to know that we in the U.K. will stand by Ukraine . . . until that candle blazes bright again.” Tearful churchgoers gave him a standing ovation and chanted “thank you.”

Johnson’s response to Putin’s invasion has been swift and decisive. For one thing, the U.K. government spoke of “invasion” from the outset. (President Biden spent the first 48 hours avoiding the word.) While enacting harsh sanctions against Russia and supplying Ukraine with military and economic aid, Johnson has been equally clear about where Britain’s involvement ends. When an emotional Ukrainian journalist demanded answers, the prime minister said he was “acutely conscious” that the U.K. government couldn’t always give the Ukrainians the exact type of support they wanted. He unequivocally ruled out no-fly zones. He said that the U.K. would not be engaged in “direct combat with Russia.”

Consider the contrast with Johnson’s leadership during the lockdown, which was fumbling and marked by ambiguity. Johnson tried to frame the pandemic with war imagery, saying Britain was “at war with an invisible enemy.” But as the weeks, months, and years dragged on and people learned to adapt, the metaphor — as with Johnson’s credibility — collapsed. As well as hypocrisy, it was pent-up anger and regret over such restrictive Covid policies that gave Partygate its ferocity.

Johnson was ill-suited to leadership during the Covid era, what with people’s reliance on public-health officials. But war is big-picture. The satellite footage of a 40-mile-long convoy of Russian troops on its way to Kyiv is the exact opposite of an “invisible enemy.”

Johnson has expressed his admiration for Zelensky’s “leadership and courage.” Clearly, he seeks to emulate such qualities. Zelensky has been compared to Winston Churchill, Johnson’s hero about whom he wrote a book, The Churchill Factor. Churchill himself was unpopular before the Second World War. But his rare gifts of charisma, oratory, moral clarity, and decisiveness were exactly what that moment called for. Ever since Brexit, Johnson has been in search of an opportunity to play to his political strengths. This may be it.