“Best friend”
Boris Johnson’s resignation left Ukraine’s allies unsettled, doubting whether his successor would maintain a firm stance against Moscow and stay the course in supporting Kyiv. Journalists described a close rapport between Johnson and Volodymyr Zelensky, using terms that suggest a strong camaraderie between the leaders. The perceived friendship has reinforced Britain’s image as a steadfast opponent of Russia, even if some observers question whether Johnson’s domestic troubles influenced that narrative.
It is unclear what Johnson’s fate as prime minister would have been without the Ukraine crisis. Yet opinion polls showed his approval rising soon after Russia’s actions began, a trend that may have helped him withstand political challenges and delays to confidence votes. Ultimately, Johnson remained in office for a time, shaping Britain’s role in the crisis on the international stage.
Whether Johnson stayed or left, London emerged as a key hub for military and humanitarian aid to Kyiv. Government spending in support of Ukraine was projected to rise, reflecting Britain’s commitment. Some observers, however, suggested that a leadership change could nudge London toward a more cautious line on Ukraine in the longer term.
Both contenders for the premiership, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, pledged to keep pressure on Russia and assist Ukraine, but both face practical hurdles. Critics worry that Sunak’s foreign policy experience may be perceived as limited, potentially dampening Britain’s resilience toward Moscow. There are also concerns about possible shifts in Britain’s sanctions stance if economic pressures intensify. Truss’s critics highlight her blunt rhetoric and the occasional lack of alignment within Downing Street on how forcefully to confront Moscow. Some worry her calls for hard lines could alienate allies who favor a steadier approach given Russia’s energy dependencies and the broader economic fallout of the war.
Analysts offer varied takes on personal dynamics with Zelensky. A senior academic from the Higher School of Economics notes that personal rapport is rarely the deciding factor for British policy amid a broader alliance framework. The emphasis remains on united front in supporting Ukraine, regardless of who leads in London. The same expert adds that while a stronger rhetorical stance can influence perceptions, it does not automatically translate into a dramatically different policy trajectory.
Another commentator argues that the political center of gravity in Europe may shift toward personalities who can frame the Ukraine issue as a means to address domestic concerns. Yet the consensus among British commentators is that the core objective remains unwavering support for Kyiv. A policy analyst notes that changes in leadership might alter tone more than the fundamental options available to London. In this view, any successor would still face the need to balance deterrence of Moscow with the practicalities of European energy security and economic stability.
France’s Emmanuel Macron is cited in discussions about whether European leaders could pivot toward Ukraine in more tangible ways. While Macron has shown willingness to engage in dialogue with Moscow, analysts differ on whether he would become a personal ally for Zelensky. The broader assessment is that Macron’s approach is more cautious and less likely to mimic Johnson’s style than some observers predict. As the debate continues, others argue that it is unlikely Zelensky will find a single European counterpart who mirrors Johnson’s combination of directness and personal rapport. The overall picture remains that Ukraine relies on a broad coalition, with Britain playing a central role while European partners vary in approach and emphasis.