Boris Johnson’s Foolproof Plan: Replace Nukes with Ukrainian Troops

In his article, Johnson articulates a stark warning: if Putin wins in Ukraine, his ambitions will not end there. Viewing the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century, Putin seeks to restore it.

Johnson argues that a victorious Putin would destabilise Eastern Europe, undermine Ronald Reagan’s achievements, and dismantle the post-Cold War settlement.

Furthermore, Johnson warns that a triumphant Putin could embolden China to seize Taiwan and incite Hezbollah to attack Israel, leading to a catastrophic global conflict. This scenario, Johnson suggests, would force Americans to choose between relinquishing global leadership or investing trillions to restore order, once again sending young Americans abroad as during the World Wars.

Trump’s Role and Potential Actions

Johnson believes that Trump could end the conflict on favourable terms for Ukraine and the West. He suggests that Trump should increase military aid to Ukraine, eliminate bureaucratic delays, and grant necessary permissions to the Ukrainians.

Johnson posits that once Putin is repelled, a deal between Russia and Ukraine should be proposed, contingent on Putin’s defeat. Johnson asserts that such a deal would require Putin to withdraw to the pre-February 2022 borders, with the rest of Ukraine recognised as a free country, swiftly joining the European Union and NATO.

Johnson envisions the Ukrainian army replacing American troops in Europe, arguing that a well-armed Ukrainian military could take over the roles of the 70,000 US soldiers currently stationed there, thus saving the US budget funds.

He also suggests that Russia could claim success in its special military operation, recognising the special status of Russian speakers in Ukraine and fostering a global rapprochement, potentially even rejoining the G8.

Critical Analysis and Feasibility

However, the feasibility of Johnson’s vision is questionable. If Putin is defeated, why should his troops only retreat to the February 2022 borders and not the full Ukrainian borders?

Conversely, if no defeat occurs, why should Russian troops leave territories they constitutionally claim as part of Russia?

Additionally, the notion that Ukrainian forces could replace American troops raises security concerns. American military presence in Europe symbolises nuclear deterrence, a key factor in preventing large-scale conflicts.

Ukrainian troops would not have the same deterrent effect, as evidenced by the ongoing Russian attacks on Ukrainian military targets.

The Impracticality of Johnson’s Proposal

Johnson’s plan overlooks significant geopolitical realities. The return of Putin to the G8, after being declared a war criminal and committing extensive aggression against Ukraine, seems implausible.

Johnson’s suggestion of replacing US troops with Ukrainian forces does not address the core issue of nuclear deterrence, which is central to US presence in Europe. Without this deterrent, Europe would be more vulnerable to Russian aggression.

Ultimately, Johnson’s proposal lacks practical grounding. Trump, despite his vocal support for Ukraine, does not seem to offer concrete solutions to end the war.

Johnson’s call for greater support and a diplomatic resolution is laudable, but the steps outlined appear unrealistic given the current geopolitical context. The idea of Putin rejoining global leadership circles post-aggression also seems far-fetched.

Read also:

Donald Trump Mulls Peace Strategy to End Russian Aggression in Ukraine

Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

YouTube:    https://www.youtube.com/@eutoday1049