The “Great Man” theory of history, in which individuals shape the destiny of nations, continents and sometimes even the world, has long been unfashionable. But this week we have seen living proof that single figures can still mould and mobilise the fate of countless others.
The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, with his courageous resistance to the Russian invasion, has helped motivate his countrymen on the battlefield, and allies abroad. Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, is attempting violently to redraw the borders of Europe. The cost of doing so, it is now clear, is not limited to the men and materiel in Ukraine’s army. Nor, even, is the danger confined to the civilians who are so shockingly exposed to the indiscriminate tactics deployed by Moscow. As tanks and cruise missiles rain down upon their young democracy and as nuclear threats are made and nuclear power stations set ablaze, it is starkly obvious that the risk extends to us all.
For all the complexities of the globalised era, there remain events, like 9/11, which demand an unequivocal response. Then, Tony Blair realised in an instant that the world had changed forever. “We, the democracies of this world,” he announced to the TUC in hastily prepared remarks as the attacks were still unfolding, “are going to have to come together to eradicate this evil completely from our world.”
Today, the conclusions should be as obvious as they were after 9/11. First, the deterrent effect of our military posture, with its emphasis on grey, hybrid warfare, and its presumption that fighting will be conducted in cyberspace, has become no deterrent at all. Some people have comforted themselves that, in launching his war, Mr Putin must have lost his mind. But the more realistic conclusion is that he rationally assessed his adversaries, and found them wanting. It is heartening that, in this, he has partly miscalculated. Sanctions and Western unity have proved more robust than he may have forecast. But there is much more to do before his assessment can be considered erroneous.
Britain will have to reappraise its attitude to defence spending. Experience has shown that stability in uncertain times is best secured not by disarmament, but the reverse, no matter the howls from the Left. In the 1980s, as the West nullified then outmatched the USSR, UK defence spending was almost 5 per cent of GDP. Today, it is just over 2 per cent. China and Russia have military spending plans to project clear strategic ambitions. So should we.
The second key area is energy. Britain in future will have to be less dependent on foreign supplies. In this we are fortunate that we are an island on windy waters, ideally placed for future offshore wind generation. But this alone will not, by a long shot, suffice. Nuclear, clean and not dependent on the vagaries of the weather, has for far too long been the subject of policy drift. Fracking has been shut down; extraction of our own reserves of oil and gas in the North Sea left to decline. All this must be re-evaluated urgently, to weigh not just economic worth, but also the strategic value of self-reliance.
Given Brexit and then the pandemic, it was clear that much greater national resilience would be necessary even before the crisis in Ukraine began. And yet the man who led the Brexit campaign, and who is now prime minister, has seemed tentative about grasping the opportunities of this new world, responding to events rather than shaping them.
Boris Johnson now has a chance to seize the moment and reboot his premiership, by articulating a comprehensive reassessment of the country’s defence and energy policies. He has an opportunity to set out how a dynamic and outward-looking Britain can continue to thrive in a new era of deglobalisation and heightened geopolitical risk. In doing so, he can start to demonstrate why, after so long in power, the voters should back the Conservatives again at the next election. As part of that, he might reconsider whether the planned rise in National Insurance contributions is sensible given the economic risks the country now faces.
Mr Johnson is a man curiously galvanised by crisis. His best moment as foreign secretary came when he mobilised the international response to Russia’s attempted murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury. Helping to mobilise the Western alliance today – and planning for Britain’s key role in a strengthened Nato tomorrow – gives him another chance to shine. Yet if this is a defining moment, as it seems to be, he must above all define a vigorous plan to get the best from Britain. His own place in history may rest upon it.
