Winning Hearts in Europe

In 2022 alone the ten countries giving the most military aid to Ukraine pledged $61.55B – just shy of the annual GDP of Slovenia (ranked 84th in global GDP rankings). In 2023 new pledges continued; on January 14th the UK promised tanks for Kyiv. On January 25th after mounting pressure, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz agreed to give Leopard tanks. Other commitments followed, predominantly from Western Europe and the USA. Now Poland is providing MiG-29 fighters. This is the latest in a long list of increasingly advanced equipment the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government have secured despite earlier hesitation in the provision of such weaponry from these nations. So what has been done to move beyond this hesitation and what can other national leaders learn from this?

Zelensky and his government have been successfully building popularity, making public appeals, using European identity, and leveraging relationships, ultimately helping to tip the balance, and securing military aid. The level of attention paid to such interpersonal tactics goes further than many national leaders especially across Europe where Euroscepticism has been on the rise and nationalist political movements have been growing. This article takes a constructivist approach to diagnose Zelensky’s most effective moves to offer lessons in diplomacy and statesmanship.

Barriers to Support

Western Europe has been continuing to arm Ukraine with more advanced weaponry despite some significant barriers prior to and following the invasion of Ukraine. The first barrier was European attitudes to the use of and investment in military force which have been in a long decline following the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the euro crisis in 2008. Across Europe, countries turned inward, and under pressure from their electorates, they focused more scarce resources on domestic priorities. In 2016 the Pew Research Center found public appetite for decreased military spending across Europe (only the Netherlands and Poland bucked this trend). Whilst this trend in military investment turned following the Russian annexation of Crimea, total defense spending across the EU reached the same level as in 2006 only by 2020. This means less military capability to go around – and crucially less to be shared with Ukraine.

The second barrier was the economy. Europe was already experiencing supply chain disruption following Covid and the Suez Canal blockage. The additional cost of energy, brought on by economic sanctions against Russia, has been adding to household and fiscal pressures. Polling shows that last summer there was more opposition than support for any measures assisting Ukraine that would increase living costs.

The most significant barrier has been Western allies’ fear of retaliation from Russia. Putin has repeatedly threatened against intervention. The lack of retaliation to date may signify these were empty threats, but this is not clear, and providing more sophisticated weapons is likely to be seen by the Kremlin as an aggressive move. The latter was reportedly a major consideration for Germany. The tanks, intended to help the Ukrainian forces pierce a hole in the frontline, provide the ability to take back land. But in this sense, they may be seen as offensive as well as defensive. The categories of what counts as offensive and defensive weapons have been much discussed in relation to this conflict. Defensive weapons typically have a shorter range whereas offensive weapons are more capable of projecting power. Modern tanks can do more damage than older lighter tanks that have smaller guns.

Military support has been building since the invasion. Donations from the U.S. alone stand at nearly $30 Billion. The phrase thanks but no tanks, used in many articles, summarises the approach taken by the Ukrainian government– whilst each new donation is gratefully received no time is wasted in moving on to the campaign for further arms (in this case tanks). Despite these intense campaigns Zelensky has been clear since the invasion that ultimately his country needs tanks and jets.

Tipping the balance

The reasons the West has been arming Ukraine against such an aggressor are numerous, not least to safeguard a sovereign nation and protect human rights. This is all in the context of historic relations between Russia and N.A.T.O. As well as rising tensions from the discussion of the expansion of the E.U. and N.A.T.O. Yet the military support asked for has built over months, rather than all being supplied at the outset of the war. A lack of retaliation from Russia and the growing evidence of human rights violations are undoubtedly hugely significant factors in favor of support. Whilst these might explain the decisions themselves, they cannot explain the timing of all the decisions to donate further military aid. Zelensky and his government have been helping to build momentum and force decisions through six key moves:

1. Personality Leadership. Zelensky’s style of leadership is personable, and his support is significant. He polls at 62% with the British public – a rate many democratic leaders would envy.  He curates his public persona carefully, appearing always in a sweatshirt and military combat trousers to signify his readiness to fight with his people even hundreds of miles from the frontline. Such significant personal support enables these subsequent moves.

2. Public appeals. This conflict has been one distinguished by the public’s involvement; from citizen journalists documenting war atrocities to households across Europe hosting refugees. The horrors of this war have been widespread on social media. This triggers not only a foreign population’s empathy but highlights human rights violations. This appeals particularly to public audiences in countries where human rights have previously been used to justify military interventions. Zelensky’s government has leveraged this support from other countries' populations to influence their leaders.  An example of this direct appeal was the Economist’s interview with General Zaluzhny, the head of the Ukrainian armed forces. Zaluzhny‘s equipment asks were very detailed for such a public audience and included numbers of specific models.

3. Friends in high places. Zelensky’s style as a statesman has been marked out by his personal alliances and dialogues. He has used his popularity to publicly support leaders, rewarding them for their military support. When the French President, Emmanuel Macron, promised light tanks, Zelensky declared on Twitter that his leadership brought Ukrainian victory closer.  

4. Unifying identities. Zelensky has been aligning Ukraine’s identity with Europe, appealing to those across the continent who identify as European. YouGov polling shows Zelensky’s popularity in the UK is statistically significantly higher amongst those who voted to remain in the EU referendum. This has been breaking down ‘us’ and ‘them’ identities within the domestic debates that European countries have been having about arming Ukraine. It draws on appetite across the E.U. for a common security and defense policy. A shifting identity has also been adopted by Ukrainians who celebrated Christmas with Western Europe this year rather than as usual with the orthodox church. Whilst this is not a population-wide purposeful change to gain support, it is still an identity that can be leveraged at a political level. This unification of identity may have been helped by refugee schemes whereby families have been housing Ukrainian refugees in their own homes. Several European countries including France, the UK, and Poland compensate households for doing so.  Across Europe, individuals have been seeing the war through the personal lens of individuals in their communities. Populations' support for Ukraine may have taken on a personal angle through this experience.

5. Leveraging nations. January was marked by increasing pressure on the German Chancellor to provide tanks. Following their decision to do so,  Germany put pressure on E.U. partners to do likewise. Reportedly the U.S., France, and Germany had meant to coordinate an earlier announcement until France went first. Given that choreography around such announcements is commonplace in diplomacy the breakdown in a coordinated announcement suggests one party getting cold feet. Yet the German and US decisions following the French announcement indicate they quickly got over this hesitancy - hastened by the pressure they were under once France had set this precedent. The lending of popular support to other leaders (as in point three) can only enhance this leveraging effect. 

6. Drawing on the past. Parallels have been drawn with the invasion of Crimea in 2014 when the frontline became stagnant. A declaration that this will happen again whilst realistic may remind Western Europe of its guilt in failing to support Ukraine before. Such guilt of inaction coupled with the negative results of appeasement in Europe’s history may remind many leaders that inaction is simply not an option. 

The approach of Zelensky and his government demonstrate significant skills suitable for wartime leadership and diplomacy. Ukraine’s current situation may perhaps have looked significantly different under another’s leadership. With such high polling stats, there can be no doubt that across-the-world leaders are taking notes and learning lessons in diplomacy and statesmanship from the Ukrainian leadership.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent those of any previous or current employers, the editorial body of SIPR, the Freeman Spogili Institute, or Stanford University.