A war leader travels across a vast ocean – at Christmastime and under a heavy cloak of security – to thank, cajole and strengthen ties with the United States.
Historical analogies can be deadly in foreign policy. If everything is viewed through the prism of Munich in 1938, the risk is of future Vietnams. But it was difficult not to see in Volodymyr Zelensky a flash of Winston Churchill, who sailed to the US in December 1941, within days of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, to address a joint session of Congress.
Zelensky’s was a visit bursting with symbolism. From the Oval Office fire roaring in the background, to his gift to Nancy Pelosi of a Ukrainian flag signed by troops on the front line in Bakhmut. Indeed the Speaker’s father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr, was serving in Congress at the time of Churchill’s speech.
Ukraine’s president — who has proved to be a communicator without parallel — harked back to US victories in the Battle of the Bulge, a turning point against Nazi Germany in the Second World War, and the Revolutionary War Battle of Saratoga, an American victory that helped draw France’s aid for US independence. This was not just good manners but cold calculation.
The visit was about more than symbols. Zelensky, like the British Empire in 1941, needs the US. America is by far the largest donor to Ukraine, which is hugely dependent on weapons, military support and, with its economy in tatters, cash.
Zelensky sought to demonstrate that US support was not charity, but investment in global security. His task was clear: to be simultaneously thankful but demanding. To pre-empt any onset of war fatigue. To bind Republicans, soon to form the majority in the House of Representatives, pointing to “bicameral and bipartisan” support in Congress.
From a strictly US fiscal perspective, Zelensky has a strong case. For cents on the dollar, the Americans have seen the Russian army lose billions in equipment and manpower. But it was on security that he wanted to drive home the message.
Unlike Nato’s European members, which share a continent with Russia, the US is (Alaska aside) far away, protected from any adversary by two large bodies of water, with friendly and far weaker nations on its north and south borders. From the perspective of Tallinn, Vilnius or Warsaw, it would be preferable if the alliance’s most important member weren’t also its most distant and safest.
Of course, we don’t know what will happen next. Many thought Kyiv would fall within days. It didn’t. Or that if Ukraine could stop the onslaught, it wouldn’t regain territory. It has. Or that now the war will go on in stalemate for years to come. Who knows?
Despite the end of the Cold War and the reduction of troops from the continent, Europe still depends on the US for its defence and security. Keeping America onside, reminding a superpower rich in natural resources and protected from foes, one that goes through regular bouts of isolationism, that their interests are ours, is the perennial European task. Zelensky is only the latest statesman to make that case and he likely won’t be the last.
In the comment pages, Sarfraz Manzoor has been pretending for years, but at last he has a trick to enjoy Christmas and New Year’s. While Sam Wells, Vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, says we may be angry, exasperated, humiliated and sad that we can’t have the Christmas we want this year. But we’re closer than ever to the real thing.
And finally, it’s been a year of political meltdowns, a return to parties, and royal tributes – see 2022 through the lens of the Londoner’s Diary.
