We are currently witnessing the end of an era. Namely the end of the post-Cold War era, which only lasted thirty years, just a decade longer than what we now call the Interwar period of 1918 to 1939. Will future generations call the period 1991-2021 the Cold-to-Hot War period or ‘the age of levity’?

Regardless, in this context, Brexit may go down in history as an event encapsulating the essence of an era and presaging what is to come – perhaps a bit like the Dreyfuss Affair in fin de siècle France encapsulated the problems of its time – including a dubious role of the press and public opinion in influencing the rule of law – and presaged the coming of WW1 and then WW2 as Hannah Arendt suggested. Brexit – as momentous as the event is for the UK and the EU – ultimately may just be a transient phenomenon that is part of a bigger picture of tectonic shifts in the post-Cold War international order. In fact, several commentators have suggested that Brexit – just 2 years old – already seems like an anachronistic irrelevance, ‘pointless and almost embarrassingly out of date’ now that ‘the past has invaded the present.’

Brexit being rendered irrelevant by the tectonic shifts in international politics does not mean, however, that it cannot still do damage to the UK and Europe. To the contrary, Putin’s war on Ukraine has upped the stakes for any decisions made regarding post-Brexit Britain’s direction.

At the same time, the war provides an opportunity to zoom out from the intractable details of Brexit in terms of its impact on all aspects of our lives and see it in its historical significance. Indeed, there has been relatively little news about specific aspects of Brexit (although some have desperately tried to put key issues back into the spotlight), as the media’s and government’s attention are – understandably and righty – fully focussed on Putin’s war on Ukraine; – but of course, as I discussed last week, the two are not unrelated.

The end of all illusions

The war in Ukraine puts to the test the belief in British superiority, the boasts about Global Britain’s influence, the claims of ‘nimbleness’ outside of the EU, but most importantly, it puts to the test what the alternative to the liberal capitalist-democratic model that the EU has come to quintessentially represent really looks like. In this respect like others, for anyone paying attention, illusions have been shattered.

Before 24 February 2022 people could legitimately claim to believe that somehow an illiberal democracy was a realistic possibility. That is, a state that somehow balances all the old-fashioned, patriarchal, nationalist values, wages ‘war on woke,’ holds up traditional ‘family values,’ but without constraining in return the ‘real’ (as opposed to woke) people’s private liberties by imposing duties and asking for sacrifices in the ‘national interest.’ A state guided by a reassuring father figure – a strong man - that cleans up the messiness of modern, liberal, pluralistic society and makes things easy and comforting, but still allows us to have all our private freedoms (such as the right not to wear a mask during a pandemic!). Some sort of hedonistic reactionary state.

This vision of an illiberal democracy has been blown to smithereens by the first Russian rocket that hit Kharkiv, Mariupol, or Kyiv. Promoting the illiberal democratic model does not pave the way to the bucolic idyll of a mid-century English village, but much more likely to the battlefields of an authoritarian, fascist state. If you allow someone to disregard the rule of law and proper democratic procedures in the name of ‘the people,’ there is a distinct possibility that eventually they will turn the power you gave them on you. In other words, ‘sticking it to the establishment’ or giving a ‘two-finger salute’ to the elites by voting for an illiberal project, may ultimately backfire.

Putin’s Russia constitutes a stark warning what it means to play with the illiberal fire. Several European countries would do well to heed that warning now, lest they are themselves dragged further into the authoritarian maelstrom. The next in line is Hungary.

The illiberal model of ‘democracy’ Victor Orbàn has imposed on Hungary in his 12 years in power, has been greatly – and openly – inspired by what Putin had achieved since 2000. Little by little, Orbàn has transformed the Hungarian polity into a democracy in name only, by redrawing the electoral map, changing the electoral law, and brining the media under his control. Some observers see the upcoming election of April 3, 2022 as the last election at which Orbàn can be beaten. If he wins, the last remnants of ‘democracy’  may be dropped from his ‘illiberal democracy’ project.

Not far behind Hungary in the queue of illiberal democracy candidates stands Britain. I have previously blogged about the worrying parallels between Orbán’s and Johnson’s actions in government. This week brought more evidence that my worries were not exaggerated. In a display of defiant contempt of democracy, the UK Parliament passed Home Secretary Patel’s Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Bill, which criminalises ‘noisy’ protests. Passing this bill at a time when anti-war protesters in Russia are being crushed with brutal force – and the UK government criticising the Russian government for it –, indicates that many conservative MPs either do not realise or care what they are doing to British democracy.

The state we’re in: Selfish, petty, delusional

The past weeks have been horrific for anyone following news, reporting, and first-hand testimonies from the war in Ukraine. From a British perspective, the horror of war and human suffering was augmented by the despicable reaction of the British government to the crisis.

The government’s reaction was a mixture of the usual Johnsonian boasts about world leadership, petty, meanspirited, selfish defensiveness about accepting refugees, and hesitation about biting the hand that feeds the Tory party.

There is the usual claim of world leadership due to the UK’s early push for Russia being cut off SWIFT payment system and for its decision to deliver weapons to Ukraine as early as January – when other countries were still hesitating to do so. These cases of ‘leadership’ contrast – however – with the hesitance of hitting the Putin regime where it hurts most, namely the massive wealth Russian oligarchs have stowed away in the UK. In this area, the UK is not only lagging behind the EU in terms of seizing oligarch assets – instead giving them the time to sell their assets – but also lying about it and – as always – claiming to do more than the EU and indeed anyone else. While one positive effect of the war in Ukraine and the ensuing public pressure is that the economic crime bill will finally be debated in Parliament, even that risks remaining largely a symbolic act in the absence of sufficient enforcement powers.

Beyond sanctions, there is also the despicable stinginess about offering refuge to people fleeing the war. Immigration minister Kevin Foster suggested Ukrainian refugees could apply for a visa scheme designed for seasonal agricultural workers, MP Edward Leigh implored the Home Secretary not to make it easier for Ukrainian refugees to come to the UK, while the Home Secretary herself only bowed to increasing public and international pressure to ease visa requirements after several days of stubborn resistance. The slow, hesitant, and distinctly inhumane response by the UK government starkly contrasts with the quick and generous response by the EU 27 who decided already on February 27th to let Ukrainian refuges stay for three years without having to apply for asylum. Most shockingly, perhaps, Labour – presumably with a view to appeal to the anti-immigration parts of the electorate considered important in the Red Wall seats – also refused to back the idea of following the EU’s open doors policy.

The Government ‘having a good war’

Perhaps we should not be surprised at the UK government’s way of handling the crisis. Afterall, it has long become clear that Johnson and the people he picked for his government do not seem to care about much else than their own personal interests and careers. The pro-Tory press, in turn, seems to wholeheartedly embrace that approach towards the tragic events.

Most strikingly, the Spectator’s  Isabel Hardman – in a piece that reveals the astonishing level of lack of empathy for human suffering – complimented Liz Truss for having a ‘good war.’ To be sure, Truss may indeed be the one member of the UK government who can lay some claim to actually having had real influence on the Russian government, having been singled out as the reason for Putin’s decision to put the Russian nuclear weapons on a higher alert level. To be fair with Truss, whatever she may or may not have said, Putin probably would have made that move regardless, and the Russian government seems to have made it a nasty habit to publicly humiliate the Foreign Secretary. Still, she did provide further proof of her lack of diplomatic skill once again after having attended an EU Council meeting on invitation, but then positing a FCO video that seems to suggest it was a G7 or NATO rather than an EU council meeting. Clearly, even in the midst of the biggest security threat to Europe since World War 2, Truss’ main concern is how she is perceived back home – and presumably her chances of becoming the next PM – rather than doing her job and contributing to solving any real problems.

The Mail’s Stephen Glover too thinks the war is going well for Johnson and Global Britain, considering that “Johnson has looked the part of a proper statesman in recent days.” He goes on to compare Johnson’s performance to that of Volodymyr Zelensky, his Ukrainian counterpart, who is head of the government of a country that is being bombed, currently forced to live underground in bomb shelters to hide from Russian bombs and assassination attempts. The complete lack of sense of realism and proportion – comparing our lying, law-breaking, and partying PM to someone who performs his duties towards the country under threat to his and his family’s life is genuinely disgusting. Equally absurd and delusional are the arguments that are being made for the diagnosis that the UK has shown leadership it could not have shown as an EU member.

The evidence provided for that bold claim that Glover provides are simply that the UK are the above-mentioned supply of weapons and the call to cut Russia off Swift – plus the fact that Johnson was “welcomed as a cherished ally when he visited Warsaw, and Tallinn in Estonia.” Glover says he doubts that “Britain might have been equally effective if it were still a member of the European Union;” but of course there is not a shred of evidence to be found in the article supporting that doubt.

Johnson himself seems to see the war as an opportunity to divert attention away from its domestic struggles around party gate. The war in Ukraine may have saved the PM’s neck. Long term, however, the PM’s entanglement in a vast web of ties he and his Brexit government have with Russian oligarchs may prove too tight to get out of unscathed. These ties are extensive and now well-documented involving virtually everyone in government from the Defence Secretary to the PM himself and reek of conflict of interest at best, outright corruption at worst.

Johnson seems to be aware of that and starts cleaning up the mess. His conferring a knighthood to Gavin Williamson led to a great deal of derision and outrage on the social media and beyond. Many commentators were baffled by the decision to honour a man who is generally considered to have failed in most of his roles in government – most importantly in the handling of GSCE and A-levels exams during the pandemic as education secretary. Yet, Carole Cadwalladr posted a fascinating threat on Twitter providing an intriguing explanation of Williamson’s knighthood relating to his time as Secretary of Defence and his knowledge about Johnson and Aaron Banks’ connections with Russian oligarchs. These connections are so egregious that there are signs that some Tory sympathisers are starting to break ranks.

Breaking ranks

Bob Seely – conservative MP for the Isle of Weight – took the unusual step of naming in the Commons a series of UK lawyers who took money from Russian oligarchs to sue British journalists. Although David Allan Green has interpreted that as a sort of scapegoating reaction that does not address the root cause of the problem – i.e. the laws themselves, the move is still indicative of an unease inside the Tory party about Russian money. (Incidentally, one such lawsuit – although brought by a Kazakh not a Russian company – against Financial Times journalist Tom Burgis was dismissed this week by a High Court.)

More importantly, Andrew Neil – chairman of the Spectator Group – announced on Saturday night an investigative article in the Sunday Times showing that Johnson disregarded security service warnings about Evgeny Lebedev’s suitability to be made a Lord. While this ‘revelation’ was old news for many of us, this too is significant in the sense that Neil previously was very active in making sure any links between Russia, the Tory party, and the Brexit project did not get too much attention, as Carole Cadwalladr demonstrated in a tweet.

There are hence signs that the Russian connections many in the Tory party and in government have may start to become a liability. This is supported by the fact that the Westminster Russia Forum – formerly known as Conservative Friends of Russia – a lobbying and fundraising group founded by the current co-chair of the conservative party and former Vote Leave chief executive Ben Elliot whose members also included Carrie Johnson – disbanded two days ago. The nervousness is palpable – some people may even be relieved that Johnson never made good on his promise to strengthen the Treason Act.

Décadence & Donkeys

It is hard to imagine that future historians will write about Britain after 2010 and not describe it as a political regime in decline, weakened by corruption and politicians’ pursuit of their self-interest through reckless profiteering even at the cost of risking the country’s security and prosperity. One is reminded of how some historians have retrospectively judged the French Third Republic (1870-1940) as a case of décadence, where the “‘personal interests’ among […] elites had ‘overwhelmed any sense of the general interest.’” On this view, this décadence made France vulnerable to external threats and internal strife and divisions to the extent that it took the Nazis only six weeks to overthrow the government and occupy most of the country. The analogy may sound alarmist. Indeed, the UK is certainly not facing any imminent threat of military invasion and occupation. Yet, that certainty may just be a little bit less unwavering now than it was even just two weeks ago. Indeed, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has reminded us that what we tend to complacently take as unwaveringly given, often is based on a delicate equilibrium that takes political skill, sensible policymaking, and care for the public interest to maintain. It is never a good time to be led by a group of people who lack any of these attributes…but 2022 seems to be the worst of all of them.