When Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv in May 2022, peace in Ukraine was within reach. Three years and a million pounds later, Europe is paying the price for a corrupt man and a continent’s silence.

When history revisits the Ukraine conflict, one episode may stand out as a turning point: Boris Johnson’s sudden visit to Kyiv in April 2022, just after a tentative peace agreement had been initialed in Istanbul.

At that moment, a ceasefire was within reach. Yet Johnson, then British Prime Minister, reportedly urged President Volodymyr Zelensky not to sign, assuring him that the West would arm Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” That decision, now under renewed scrutiny following revelations by The Guardian, may have changed the course of the conflict—and Europe’s political destiny.

The Istanbul Agreement That Never Was

By early April 2022, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators had agreed in principle to a framework that could have ended hostilities. Ukraine would forgo NATO membership in exchange for security guarantees. But after Johnson’s unannounced visit to Kyiv, talks collapsed.

Following The Guardian investigation, David Arakhamia, a member of Zelenskyy’s own negotiating team in Istanbul, appeared to lend the idea credence. “When we returned from Istanbul, Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let’s just fight,” he said in a November 2023 interview.

That the European Union tolerated this manipulation without investigation or accountability reflects a failure of leadership, not merely a lapse of ethics

According to leaked documents published by The Guardian, sourced from Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoS), a US-based transparency collective, Johnson had other motives for discouraging compromise.

The investigation traces a £1 million payment from businessman Christopher Harborne, a major shareholder in a British drone manufacturer supplying the Ukrainian military, to a private company created by Johnson shortly after leaving office. Harborne also accompanied Johnson to Kyiv, raising questions about direct lobbying and influence-peddling at the highest level of government.

Following the Money

Harborne’s donation, ostensibly legitimate under UK law, takes on a darker significance in this context. As Johnson lobbied Zelensky to prolong the war, Harborne’s company stood to benefit from expanded arms contracts. The Guardian’s exposé describes this payment as “a reward for services rendered,” a euphemism for bribery in geopolitical disguise.

Johnson dismissed the report as “a pathetic Russian hack job,” yet neither he nor Downing Street has provided a transparent accounting of the donation or its timing. The optics are damning: a former prime minister allegedly persuading a wartime ally to reject peace while personally profiting through associates linked to the arms trade.

The Price of Prolongation

Since that fateful spring, the toll has been catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civilians have perished. More than three trillion US dollars in Western aid and military spending have flowed into the conflict, much of it financed by debt and by diverting funds from social programmes.

European citizens are paying the price. Budgets once earmarked for welfare, healthcare, and pensions have been repurposed to sustain the war effort. Energy costs have soared, industrial competitivity has sunk, inflation has eroded savings, and social unrest has become regular across the continent.

The narrative of European solidarity has given way to anger and fatigue. Populist and far-right parties are sweeping across Europe. In this sense, Johnson’s intervention did not only prolong a war; it accelerated a social and political crisis within Europe itself.

From Peace Project to Proxy War

The European Union once prided itself on being a “peace project.” Yet its handling of the Ukraine conflict has projected a very different image: that of a continent complicit in militarisation and escalation. France and Germany, the supposed guardians of diplomatic balance, quietly aligned themselves with Washington’s maximalist stance.

No leader publicly questioned why the Istanbul Agreement was abandoned. No parliamentary inquiry has addressed whether Johnson’s visit influenced European policy and why European leaders did not censure Johnson.

In retrospect, Europe’s passivity reveals both dependency and cowardice. The EU’s foreign policy has become an echo of Washington’s strategic interests and those of arms manufacturers, such as Mr. Harborne, while dissenting voices were marginalised as “pro-Russian”. This reflex has stifled honest debate about the human and economic costs of the war and about who truly benefits from its continuation.

The Corruption Business

War has always been fertile ground for corruption, and Ukraine is no exception. From inflated procurement contracts to opaque aid transfers, vast sums have disappeared without audit. Johnson’s alleged bribe merely symbolises a broader pattern: the convergence of political ambition, corporate profit, and ideological fervour.

Bribery and influence-trading have evolved into sophisticated transnational systems cloaked in legality: foreign lobbying, consultancy fees, and donations to foundations. Such practices blur the line between governance and outright corruption. They ensure that conflicts endure not because peace is impossible, but because war remains profitable.

Europe’s Crisis of Leadership

The scandal surrounding Boris Johnson’s intervention in Ukraine exposes a deeper political and strategic crisis within Europe. The same continent that once championed diplomacy and human rights now finances a proxy war that has devastated a nation and destabilised an entire region.

European leaders invoke solidarity while diverting resources from welfare and pensions, tolerating rising inequality and industrial competitivity decline to sustain arms deliveries. The rhetoric of democracy has been replaced by the logic of deterrence.

Across the continent, disillusionment is fuelling the ascent of populist and far-right parties. Citizens who once viewed the EU as a guarantor of peace now perceive it as complicit in perpetual conflict. From Slovakia to the Netherlands, voters are turning against Brussels’ alignment with Washington, revealing a growing mistrust of supranational elites and foreign-driven policy agendas.

Johnson’s defenders claim his visit to Kyiv stemmed from moral conviction, not financial interest, but conviction cannot erase consequence. Had the Istanbul peace framework been pursued, thousands of lives and trillions in resources might have been spared. Instead, Johnson’s theatrics helped entrench a war whose primary beneficiaries are defence contractors and political opportunists.

That the European Union tolerated this manipulation without investigation or accountability reflects a failure of leadership, not merely a lapse of ethics. By outsourcing strategic direction to NATO and moral authority to Washington, Europe has strayed from its founding principles of peace and autonomy.

The result is a continent economically weakened, politically fragmented, and increasingly defined by the conflicts it once sought to prevent.

In sum, The Guardian investigation has done what official institutions would not: follow the money and expose the moral bankruptcy behind the rhetoric of freedom. Whether courts or parliaments act on these revelations remains uncertain. But the evidence is clear enough for history’s judgment.

Ricardo Martins, PhD in Sociology, specializing in International Relations and Geopolitics