Boris Johnson's Column Means: No Deals with Russia. US Will Apply Power Projection in Foreign Relations.
What this article is about
In Boris Johnson's column on the war in Ukraine, the author argues that it is impossible to negotiate with the 'collective Putin'. This is done by contrasting Trump's heroism and leadership with proposed unrealistic conditions for ending the war.
Johnson's text invites us all to realize that the United States will pursue power projection in its foreign policy.
If we take everything that is written literally, we can divide the text into components: Trump, Putin, the world and Ukraine, and proposals for conflict resolution.....
At the same time, half of the text is devoted to Trump's personality and what good he could do for America and the world by becoming the 47th president of the United States, having a great chance to do so.
In characterizing Putin (in fact, the Russians), Johnson also truthfully points out the inadequacy of their perception of reality. At the same time, Johnson is realistic about the state of global security and the consequences for the world (and certain regions) if Putin succeeds in Ukraine.
Speaking of Russians’ inadequacy, Johnson simultaneously suggests that the brave Trump create a decent way out of this war for Russia, which is a logical contradiction.
Why does Johnson propose unrealizable scenarios? We need to be clear about what this article might be about.
Johnson's assumptions
I would highlight a few themes that clearly indicate Johnson's intention to show that no deal with the Russians is achievable.
Assumption #1 - Return to the 2022 borders
I remind you that 4 Ukrainian regions within their administrative boundaries have been incorporated into Russia by the Russian parliament, as enshrined in their constitution.
If (and when) the Armed Forces of Ukraine push back the Russians to the borders of 2022 and regain control of Ukrainian lands, the Russian Federation will be in a situation where the regions proclaimed in accordance with the Russian Constitution will be occupied by Ukrainians (as understood by the Russian Federation).
Considering the state of Russian society, which is the underwater body of the iceberg on which the top of the Russian elite and Putin as its representative rest, there is nothing to suggest that the Russians will change their constitution and give up the conquered territories.
Moreover, such a move could trigger a chain reaction and lead to separatist movements (e.g. Caucasus).
I can't imagine a scenario in which the Russian political elite would go back and have their parliament vote again on giving up the occupied territories - it's more likely that Russia will run out of vodka than that.
Assumption #2 - Rapprochement between the US and Russia
According to Russian rhetoric, Russia is opposed to the hegemony of the West led by the United States. The Russian Federation seeks to eliminate US global leadership and proclaim a multipolar world in which it will be one of the world's rulers of destiny.
How does this correlate with the Trumpist Republicans' proclaimed policy of “Making America Great Again?” Such greatness will not come from concessions to totalitarian regimes that seek to break into other people's homes to kill, steal, and rape.
The Russians consider American globalism as disease, and they imagine and offer themselves as a doctor, to their own benefit of course.
What kind of rapprochement with Russia is possible after they threaten the West with the use of nuclear weapons?
We are witnessing the unification of evil countries - Iran joins China and Russia as a new axis of anti-American autocracies. They are opposed by countries with values that have emerged from European civilization. I have no idea what the two camps could have in common.
Against this background, I find it hard to imagine a picture of Trump agreeing on something with a “notional putin” that would be a sign of American weakness. This does not fit with the Republican approach of “Peace through Strength.”
(www.independent.co.uk)
At the same time, the United States is guarding against the emergence of a hegemonic country in Eurasia that would control the resources of the Eurasian continent, logistics, and dominate certain regions and the world as a whole.
Putin is holding on to the dumb Russian people, who are very fond of killing, and for no reason, and especially for money (RAND report).
Take a close look at the post - half of the text is devoted to Trump's prowess. Along with this, Johnson points out Putin's distorted perception of the world, i.e. the Russians.
What can bring together two societies that are so different, the American and the Russian, to go and negotiate?
And this is after another Johnson, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, said that the Russians are deliberately killing with their missiles Christians in Ukraine.
(Джерело - www.hudson.org)
Another question is why would Russia want to make any agreements and end the war? After all, the Russian Federation is doing a pretty good job of keeping half of Europe on a psychological hook in the “I can attack or I can wait...” mode, and the Russians seem to be enjoying it. What the Russians are doing in Ukraine, they are using as a intimidation for the world (primarily for Europe), accumulating human fear and fatigue as a tool to achieve their goals.
Assumption #3 - Ukraine's accession to NATO
As for Ukraine's membership in NATO, it will probably be realized only after the reorganization (reform) of the Alliance. In my opinion, because of too many member states of different quality, a case has been created where quality is sacrificed for quantity. Hungary and Slovakia clearly demonstrate the differences in the values on which NATO was founded. And the principle of decision-making - through the consensus of ALL members - makes the Alliance too clumsy.
And what about Putin's statements about “NATO's withdrawal to the 1997 borders”? What does this mean? And what should the United States and the United Kingdom do about it if they need to negotiate with Russia?
What Johnson was silent about
Along with this, Johnson LEFT OUT OF CONSIDERATION food and nuclear security (Russian intimidation to arm other regimes - whether they are already doing it in the case of Iran - is in question) along with the occupation of Crimea (shouldn't we consider solving this issue too?).
Perhaps there was no point in talking about it, if my understanding of the real message of the article is correct.
Johnson, as an experienced politician, probably deliberately wrote such a text, but for what?
To propose conditions that Putin himself will reject and consider unrealistic?
In this way, to indicate that the Russian Federation does not seek peace, as it itself declares?
And it is possible to talk with countries of this kind only through the projection of power.
Conclusion
Why then all this article? To show the absurdity of agreements with the Russians. An article about the fact that Trump, with his advantages, will not be able to come to an agreement with the disadvantages of the Russians.
It is impossible to end the conflict quickly by making some compromises with the Russians, because this conflict is not about Ukraine. We need to realize Russia's political goal, and Ukraine is not that goal. The war against Ukraine is a means to an end. What is a purpose? Such a goal is multi-component, one of the components is to be talked to and accepted as an equal, which will allow you to set your own rules at the level of regions and the world as a whole.
And if one day we even assume that the USA and its allies will hold talks with Moscow about some kind of agreement - then the conditions must be beyond the limits of Ukrainian concessions (Ukraine does not have to sacrifice anything - because it has already sacrificed too much with the lives of its citizens) - otherwise the West will legitimize the thieving behavior of the Russians.
The Russians are not likely to retreat or push back on the basis of any agreements. In other words, my prediction in this war is that it will last a long time. And the Russians are not at all interested in ending it. Not until Russia suffers heavy losses.
That is, the Russians should retreat, but it will be under a different government and after self-awareness of their illnesses, as it once happened with the Germans after 1945.
And the only way to get to those times has already been pointed out to us by Boris Johnson's favorite, Sir Winston Churchill: “blood, toil, tears and sweat.”
The Americans are well aware of this, having mobilized their economy in World War II and lost 300,000 lives.