Last week Volodymyr Zelenskiy – in his trademark khaki shirt and combat boots – stood in the 900-year-old Westminster hall and addressed Britain’s wide-eyed law makers. “London has stood with Kyiv since day one” he said, “from the first seconds and minutes of the full-scale war, Great Britain – you extended your helping hand when the world had not yet come to understand how to react.”
It has become fashionable lately to call out the United Kingdom and the sorry state of its international reputation – a ghost of what it once was. This was the cradle of the industrial revolution; the nation that faced down nazism in Europe; then the standard bearer for contemporary Western liberalism. Now? Squandered. And all in the name of what, exactly? Petty anxieties about EU bureaucracy?
We hear about how Britain is slouching towards irrelevance, hopelessly vulnerable to chaos. Even the straight-player Rishi Sunak can’t seem to get a handle on the country after the short-lived paroxysm of Liz Truss. The trains don’t run on time. No one wants to work. Global prestige is consigned to history.
Fair enough. Britain has taken a sledgehammer to its own reputation in the seven years since it opted to leave the European Union. From repeated failures to acknowledge the complicated facts of Northern Ireland to Truss’s visionary tanking of sterling, it can be hard to see the bright side. And what a shame. It didn’t have to be this way.
Restoration of Notre Dame shows hard things can be achieved if we’re not afraid to be ambitious
To the French, Germans and even the Brits, Ireland is blessed with boring politics
I cringed at Paul Mescal’s Brit-bashing
MasterChef star Gregg Wallace’s bad behaviour was not ‘uncovered’, it was widely known
Perhaps all of this unseriousness hit a low point with the appointment of former England cricketer Ian Botham as Britain’s trade envoy – as though this was the way Britain would usher in its new era as a global trading metropolis and not a nation that has hobbled itself at the altar of so-called ‘sovereignty.’
But Zelenskiy’s words remind us that these are not the only things that count – no matter how many yarns we can spin about a crumbling nation devoid of spirit, a pale imitation of its former glory. In fact, this week proved something entirely the opposite: Britain’s place as a serious actor on the international stage is robust. And it reminded us that the “myth” of global Britain is – at least for now – a reality.
When Russia invaded Ukraine almost one year ago President Zelenskiy vowed to stay rather than flee to safety. And he quickly became a model wartime leader – navigating the complex and tragic conflict with charisma and skill that many, perhaps, did not expect of him. Now he is travelling through the West making pleas for fighter jets. Where did he head first on this tour? Just that small island in Northern Europe that apparently has no serious reputation left to maintain.
Zelenskiy was unambiguous. He thanked Britain for its early, decisive and generous support with the war effort. But he made it clear that he was after planes – something the US and Europe have been cautious to offer so far. Britain – again – may be ahead of the pack. They have not offered planes. But just before Zelenskiy arrived last week it announced it would begin training Ukrainian pilots to fly Nato-standard jets.
For all of Boris Johnson’s failures – and they are myriad – it would be ungracious to refuse to acknowledge what he got right. Out of the starting gates he was unequivocal and bullish in his response to Ukraine, setting the tone not just for his peers at home but for the more pessimistic on the international stage too. Perhaps that ought to be his legacy more than anything else. It seems Zelenskiy certainly thinks so.
Not so much can be said of Ireland. And Zelenskiy hasn’t been anxious to point this out. Last year he said that Ireland had been a keen supporter of Ukraine, before qualifying: “well, almost.” Since, Micheál Martin repeatedly asserted that Ireland was not politically neutral in this war, only militaristically. It is hard to deny that there is – in the very least – a shade of cakeism going on here.
[ Naomi O'Leary: Were Zelenskiy’s comments about Ireland lost in translation?Opens in new window ]
Ireland’s commitment to neutrality is its own decision. But we cannot maintain that commitment while claiming Britain’s international reputation is depleted.
Of course the United Kingdom is not without its difficulties, and it certainly has a flippancy problem. But a wholesale dismissal of the nation does not work and certainly is not fair. Of course a Ukrainian victory depends on much more than what Britain can offer. And Zelenskiy’s visit may not change policy – Europe will continue to look to the United States. But optics matter, and the United Kingdom has won the argument so far.
In the end, the idea of global Britain is robust precisely because it runs deep and has done for a long time. Last week, as the Ukrainian national anthem played over Westminster Hall, and many observers were moved to tears, Zelenskiy offered a symbol that has resounded across the globe before: Churchill’s V for Victory. Proof that when it matters, Britain’s legacy can endure.