Boris Johnson’s Ukraine policy may not have always been sophisticated – “Dobryi den, everybody!” – but his enthusiasm was welcomed in Kyiv. Six months of Conservative party chaos later, his successor but one, Rishi Sunak, is yet to demonstrate he is as supportive at a time when Ukraine needs the west to dig in.
A leak at the start of the weekend said that Sunak had ordered an internal assessment of the significance of British military aid to Ukraine. Revelation of the Whitehall exercise was accompanied by a pointed briefing to the BBC, accusing the prime minister of resorting to a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach.
“Wars aren’t won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct,” the critic continued – a demonstration that cracks are appearing in Britain’s policy towards Ukraine.
Downing Street may have rejected that characterisation on Monday, but a Ukraine review is on. “The PM is staying closely across the detail of developments in Ukraine and the impact of UK and international support,” a spokesperson said. “To ensure we are delivering the best possible assistance.”
It is also no secret in Westminster that Sunak and his defence secretary, Ben Wallace, are not close. Wallace has been the ever present figure in Britain’s Ukraine policy, but also a long-term supporter of Johnson who then backed the ill-fated Liz Truss and flirted with backing Johnson in an unlikely comeback against Sunak.
A year ago, when it was still unclear that Russia would invade, it was Wallace pressing for Kyiv to be supplied with NLAW anti-tank weapons. The deal was announced last January, over a month before the invasion, at a time when only previously the US and Turkey had agreed to supply arms to the under threat Ukraine.
It was one of a number of times where a British intervention was significant. Whitehall insiders increasingly acknowledge the intelligence support that Kyiv has received since the start of the war, which helps with targeting and strategy. There are reports too that Johnson’s willingness to aid Ukraine helped bring round a more reluctant Joe Biden, the US president, on whom Kyiv ultimately depends.
What is not clear is if Sunak is willing to drive the US further. At a meeting of the 10-country Nordic, Baltic and north European joint expeditionary force in Latvia, Sunak said the west should reject unilateral Russian calls for a ceasefire – a fairly standard position – and focus on “degrading Russia’s capability to regroup and to resupply”, indicating support for Ukraine’s continuing counter-offensive efforts.
In itself this is somewhat vague and, as a medium-sized European nation, Britain can only do so much. What Sunak did announce was that the UK will supply “hundreds of thousands” of artillery shells next year, necessary for Ukraine to sustain its war effort against an opponent capable of firing 20,000 a day or more.
Kviv, however, is calling for a step-change in western assistance – and warning against western complacency or fatigue as Russian missiles rain down on its cities. The invaders still occupy a sixth of Ukraine’s territory, an area the size of Portugal, and if they are not pushed back the Kremlin will, despite all its losses, be able to claim some kind of victory.
In what appeared to be coordinated remarks, Oleksii Reznikov, Ukraine’s defence minister, said in a Guardian interview that Russia plans to mount a fresh offensive this spring. The head of the armed forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, also argued the Kremlin may order a fresh assault on Kyiv – while to win the war on land would call for “300 tanks, 600-700 ifvs [infantry fighting vehicles], 500 howitzers”.
A review of Britain’s help for Ukraine may help Sunak understand better how UK military aid has so far been used. But Ukraine’s need is more urgent: to fend off its autocratic neighbour Kyiv needs western nations to orchestrate a greater degree of assistance before Moscow has time to regroup and bring to bear the better trained of the 300,000 conscripts it mobilised this autumn.
