Boris Johnson's plan for Ukraine
An article written by former British prime minister Boris Johnson has sparked debate in Ukraine. In the British tabloid the Daily Mail, Johnson outlined his vision for how Donald Trump could end the Russian war of aggression if he wins the election. According to the plan, Ukraine would be provided with sufficient military resources to restore the 2022 borders - but would have to give up the remaining territories. It would then be allowed to join Nato and the EU.
What Churchill would say
Iryna Herashchenko, member of the Ukrainian parliament for the party European Solidarity, expresses outrage in Espreso:
“It's strange that such things were written by a politician who admires Churchill. ... Churchill rightly pointed out that if you are given the choice between war and dishonour, if you choose dishonour you will have war. Johnson proposes that the Ukrainians choose dishonour. ... Johnson is proposing that Britain, the US, Nato, the EU and the whole world choose disgrace and then end up with a war between Russia and the alliance. Because Russia will see the surrender of the Ukrainian territories as a weakness of Nato and will without doubt proceed to tear off new territories as part of his 'denazification' of Latvia or Lithuania, Estonia or Poland.”
Neither Trump's plan nor Putin's
Commenting in Telegraf, blogger Anton Schwez voices his doubts:
“The plan doesn't look realistic. It will be very difficult for the US to implement it QUICKLY because it doesn't suit Putin's interests in any way. So Russia would have to be dealt a very strong blow that would bring the regime close to collapse. The Ukrainian army would have to show Russia how the US fights, so to speak. But without the US. It's not that simple. ... So far this looks like Johnson's plan for Trump, not Trump's plan.”
Time to think about our red lines
Blogger Valery Pekar calls in Gordonua.com for a substantive debate about the objectives in this war:
“Ukraine's problem is that there is a lack of both communication between the government and society and of a discussion within society about what constitutes a victory and what we consider a defeat, and where our red lines are. ... The constant repetition about the 1991 borders has long ceased to be useful and has now become harmful: it shows Ukrainians that there is no vision for victory, and it shows the world that we are fighting for territories, but not for the people or for the preservation of our state and identity.”