Who will last longer in power, Johnson or Zelensky?

Despite leading a country under invasion and being destroyed by a relentless war machine, Zelensky doesn’t have to contend with backbench Tory MPs, says David Harding

Zelensky may be the last person in Europe who is pleased to hear from Boris Johnson (Ukrainian presidential press-ser)

Boris Johnson’s latest phone call to Ukraine’s President Zelensky on Tuesday came as little surprise.

The disaster-prone, accident-prone (and just plain atrocious) Johnson resorted to his traditional playbook of once again trying to portray himself as a world leader, a serious man for serious times, deflecting from events as Westminster burned around him, set alight by his own lies and inadequacies.

No doubt the call was warmly received as Zelensky may be the last person in Europe who is pleased to hear from Boris Johnson. It did though bring to mind a recent pub discussion about the permanency, or not, of world leaders.

That was prompted a few weeks ago by the latest shenanigans of, and imminent death notices for, Johnson and his political career. There was general conclusion that although everyone thought the British prime minister was on his way out, he was good for a few months more at least.

The conversation then went on: who will last longer in power, Johnson or Zelensky?

The consensus was Zelensky, because despite leading a country under invasion and being destroyed by a relentless war machine, he doesn’t have to contend with backbench Tory MPs.

The argument then stretched out.

Who of these would be in power longer: Johnson, Zelensky or Putin? How about Johnson, Zelensky, Putin or Biden? What about which of these would be in power in three years’ time: Johnson, Zelensky, Putin, Biden or Trump? All were agreed that whatever happened, Xi, Orban and Modi would definitely be there longer than any of them.

It was more fun than it sounds – maybe you had to be there – but also shows the fragile nature of world politics. When Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt got together at Yalta, they would have no idea that two of them would not be shaping the immediate post-war world.

Or that Sarkozy and Cameron’s ill-fated embrace of war in Libya would push the country into an abyss long after they departed the stage. If Russia had invaded Ukraine during the Trump presidency, it would seem unlikely that support for Kyiv from Washington would be so enthusiastic, and what might that have meant for No 10’s embrace of the war.

It was also a game not just of what-ifs, but also what might be. There seems little reason, from the viewpoint of Putin’s logic, to end the war. If somehow the conflict can stretch out to the next US presidency, who knows what might happen?

It also shows the importance of individuals and how they shape the course of world events. Much depends on that for Europe and the world over the next few years. Quite worrying actually. And maybe I need a new pub game.

Yours,

David Harding

International editor