Who benefits the most from Boris Johnson’s support of Ukraine?

Whatever you think about Boris Johnson, you cannot doubt either his way with words or the force of his advocacy. It was his campaigning, quite as much as his opponent’s weakness, that gave the Conservatives their unforecast landslide in the 2019 election.

Now, evicted from No 10 and facing a privileges committee inquiry – maybe even the loss of his parliamentary seat at the next election – he is placing the gamut of those skills at the service of Ukraine. His plea for the West to give Ukraine “everything it wants to win – now!” commanded the front page of the Daily Mail this week, and it was vintage Johnson: powerful, emotive, peppered with words, such as “cryogenic”, from outside the mainstream journalistic repertoire, and replete with vivid images, including tanks uselessly “guarding North Rhine-Westphalia, protecting Tennessee, prowling the villages of Wiltshire”, rather than “helping Ukraine bring this agony to an end”.

His support for Ukraine seems absolutely genuine, as does his friendship with Volodymyr Zelensky. The cause of this small (though not that small) country fighting heroically for its very survival against big bad Russia has not only a very clear moral dimension, but a romanticism that Johnson surely understands.

His rapport with Zelensky may have begun with the Ukrainian leader’s gratitude that a high-profile Western leader was taking up Ukraine’s cause, which paved the way for others. And, on Johnson’s side, there may have been more than a twinge of envy, that Zelensky had become the sort of Churchillian war leader that Johnson himself might have fancied becoming. Perhaps, too, they recognise something of themselves in the other: an instinct for politics, a certain personal magnetism, as well as a readiness to take risks – necessary risks, it might be judged in Zelenskiy’s case; less necessary, perhaps, in Johnson’s.

Of course, there are elements of self-interest, too. Johnson’s habit of rushing to Kyiv when in difficulty at home has been well charted. For Zelensky, Johnson is an asset he can parade to demonstrate continuing international support. And while Johnson’s visits may be problematic for Rishi Sunak as UK prime minister, they also help him by keeping the Union Jack flying in Kyiv.

Together, Johnson’s full-throated support for Ukraine and his rapport with Zelenskiy have fostered talk that he could be in line for some more formal role. First up was the suggestion that Liz Truss might appoint him the UK’s special envoy for Ukraine – seen at once as a way of giving him something useful to do, while minimising his opportunities to make mischief at home.

There has since been talk also of him becoming an international envoy of some kind for Ukraine, given the accolades he has received in that country. Most recently, it has been mooted that he could become coordinator of an international mega-project for something akin to a Marshall plan to reconstruct Ukraine. Alright, so coordination may not be Johnson’s thing, but a persuasive frontman will be almost as important as a competent team – and Ukraine might be a better “fit” for Johnson, than, say, the post of Nato secretary general (to which it has been said he might also aspire).

This, however, is to run ahead. Johnson’s current priority with Ukraine – along, cynics might say, with keeping himself in the limelight – is to advocate for ever more help for Ukraine so that, as he sees it, it can beat Russia. As he fulminated in his article: “What the hell is the West waiting for?” Which is where, I must admit, my misgivings set in.

Johnson is many things. He started out as – and remains – a journalist; first reporting, and then commenting. He became an editor, an author of fiction and non-fiction, and then a politician, who rose to become prime minister. It is a range of skills and experience that equips him well to advocate for Ukraine in a war he believes in, and matches in so many ways his Churchillian dream.

But the various strands risk becoming tangled – indeed, they already are. Johnson’s fervent plea for the West to maintain its support is described as a dispatch from Bucha, the town outside Kyiv where Russian forces are accused of atrocities against civilians before they left. But it is not – or not only – reportage. It is also advocacy; and highly effective advocacy, to boot.

But it also exemplifies Johnson’s well-known weaknesses as a reporter and a politician over the years: a preference for broad generalisation over detail, a sometimes casual approach to the facts, and a tendency to get carried away – especially when in full campaign mode.

Which leaves a question in my mind about how well, in the end, Boris Johnson’s exuberant support of its cause will actually serve Ukraine.

The immediate purpose of his article, and doubtless of his latest visit to Kyiv, was clearly to influence the then-ongoing debate about whether the West should supply Kyiv with tanks. But his argument came with characteristic over-the-top rhetoric and advice that can only be described as reckless. “Don't talk to me about ‘escalation’, or the risk that we will somehow provoke Putin ... Will he escalate with a battlefield nuclear weapon? Really? I don't believe it for a second. He won't do it.” Well, maybe.

He voices supreme confidence that “Ukraine is winning and will win this war” – a form of cheerleading designed as much to boost morale not just in Ukraine, but among Western audiences too. This is the voice not of a reporter, nor yet of an elder statesman, but of a campaigner; even, dare I say, a propagandist.

That does not invalidate what he says. But it is quite important, as a reader, to know you are being bombarded with arguments that may reflect wishful thinking and could lead Europe into a much wider war. Johnson and others might persuasively argue that war is no time for nuance. But the UK is not at war, although there appear to be some who wish it were – and now they have a big rhetorical beast entering the fray on their side.

I will readily admit that having Boris Johnson in full flight on the other side makes life that bit more difficult for those of us trying to argue against escalation – not, I hasten to add, because it might increase the harm to Russia, but because of the greater death and destruction likely to be suffered by Ukraine if the war goes on.

At the same time, the Johnson approach comes with its own risks. The presumption that Ukraine can and will win back all its territory may well underestimate Russia’s capability and resolve. The dispute about tanks exposed divisions within and between Western countries about support for Ukraine; divisions that will continue, and could one day lead to the West deciding to cut its losses.

Who knows how next year’s US presidential campaign will develop. One way or another, Boris Johnson could find himself stranded, if and when the music stops.

Questions have also arisen about the situation in Kyiv. The past two weeks have seen many more changes in Zelensky’s team than at any time since the Russian invasion: a senior defence spokesperson dismissed for wrong messaging; a crucial minister killed in a helicopter crash; and as many as a dozen officials dismissed for corruption. Until now, Zelensky’s team had remained remarkably solid. What if peace talks in some form are closer than they might seem?

And last, but not least, there is the possible return of the old story, where Boris Johnson oversteps the mark, gets carried away by the – to him – obvious righteousness of his cause, and puts about flagrant untruths such that he becomes a liability once again to his friends (including the leader of Ukraine).

For the moment Johnson can be a highly effective advocate for Ukraine in its war with Russia, especially on the international stage. By all means award him an official role; whether now, while the war is still raging, or for a massive, Marshall-style reconstruction plan.

But as is often the case with Boris Johnson, it has always to be borne in mind that something could go drastically wrong. This is, after all, a man who squandered his chance to become the most influential British prime minister since his hero Winston Churchill.