UK will have to ship non-combat troops to Ukraine now, former PM Johnson tells BBC – Life Pulse Daily
Editor-in-chiefFebruary 21, 20263 Mins read10
UK May Deploy Non-Combat Troops to Ukraine, Says Former PM Boris Johnson
Introduction
Former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has made a bold proposal: the United Kingdom and its allies should send non-combat troops to Ukraine immediately, rather than waiting for a ceasefire. In an exclusive interview with the BBC, Johnson argued that deploying peacekeeping forces now could shift Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calculations and demonstrate unwavering Western support for Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Key Points
- Boris Johnson suggests sending non-combat UK and allied troops to Ukraine now
- The proposal aims to strengthen Ukraine's position before any ceasefire
- Johnson criticizes the West's delayed and incremental military support
- He links the current conflict to earlier Western failures, particularly the 2014 Crimea annexation
- The UK is working with allies on a "coalition of the willing" for post-war peacekeeping
- Johnson warns that Putin views any foreign troop presence as a major provocation
Background
The war in Ukraine has now entered its fourth year, with devastating consequences for both nations. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Western allies have provided substantial military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, but have consistently stopped short of deploying combat troops or establishing no-fly zones due to fears of direct NATO-Russia confrontation.
Johnson, who was UK Prime Minister during the initial invasion, has maintained close ties with Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His recent comments represent a significant escalation in rhetoric from Western leaders, suggesting that the current approach of gradual escalation may be insufficient to achieve peace.
Analysis
Johnson’s proposal marks a notable departure from current Western policy. While the UK and its allies are preparing a peacekeeping force for deployment after a potential ceasefire, Johnson argues this approach gives too much leverage to Putin. By waiting until after a ceasefire to deploy troops, the West essentially hands Putin the initiative to dictate terms.
The former Prime Minister draws a direct line from the West’s tepid response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea to the current full-scale invasion. He argues that each instance of Western hesitation—whether over Crimea, chemical weapons use in Syria, or the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan—emboldened Putin and convinced him that the West lacked the resolve to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Johnson’s frustration is palpable. He believes the current strategy of providing just enough support to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to force a decisive outcome, serves neither side well. The incremental approach, which he describes as “endless fudge and obscurity,” has prolonged the conflict and cost countless lives.
Practical Advice
For policymakers considering Johnson’s proposal, several factors merit careful consideration:
1. **Risk Assessment**: Any deployment of foreign troops, even in non-combat roles, risks direct confrontation with Russian forces and could potentially escalate the conflict.
2. **Ukrainian Consent**: Johnson emphasizes that any deployment must have Ukraine’s full support and should not involve war-fighting capabilities.
3. **Clear Mandate**: The mission would need a clearly defined mandate to avoid mission creep and ensure all parties understand the troops’ non-combat role.
4. **International Coordination**: Success would require close coordination with NATO allies and clear communication with Russia to prevent misunderstandings.
5. **Public Communication**: Governments would need to clearly explain to their citizens why this escalation is necessary and how it differs from direct combat involvement.
FAQ
**Q: What exactly does Johnson mean by “non-combat troops”?**
A: Johnson specifies that these would not be war-fighting forces but rather personnel in support roles, potentially including training, logistics, medical support, or peacekeeping functions.
**Q: How would this differ from the current “coalition of the willing” plan?**
A: The current plan involves deploying troops only after a ceasefire agreement. Johnson’s proposal would deploy them now, before any ceasefire, to strengthen Ukraine’s negotiating position.
**Q: Why does Johnson believe this could change Putin’s calculations?**
A: By demonstrating a long-term Western commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty through physical presence, it may convince Putin that the costs of continued aggression outweigh potential gains.
**Q: What has been the reaction from current UK leadership?**
A: As of now, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has not endorsed Johnson’s proposal, continuing to focus on the post-ceasefire peacekeeping plan.
**Q: How has Russia responded to similar proposals in the past?**
A: Russia has consistently viewed any foreign military presence in Ukraine as a provocation, with Putin stating that deployed troops would be “legitimate targets.”
Conclusion
Boris Johnson’s call for immediate deployment of non-combat troops to Ukraine represents a significant shift in thinking about how to end the conflict. While controversial, his argument highlights the limitations of the current incremental approach and suggests that demonstrating stronger, more immediate support for Ukraine might be necessary to achieve peace.
The proposal raises complex questions about risk, escalation, and the West’s long-term commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty. As the war approaches its fourth anniversary with no clear end in sight, Johnson’s intervention may prompt serious reconsideration of current strategies among Western allies.
Whether or not Johnson’s specific proposal gains traction, his broader critique of Western policy—that hesitation and incrementalism have only prolonged the conflict—deserves careful consideration as policymakers continue to search for a path to peace.
Leave a comment