Colonel Roman Svitan, a retired officer of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and military expert, discusses Boris Johnson’s suggestions for what Trump could offer Putin to stop Russia – Ukraine war.
– Mr. Roman, one of the big news items recently is that Boris Johnson, the former British Prime Minister, after meeting with Trump in the United States, released a plan he outlined in his Daily Mail column. The essence is that this is Johnson’s proposal, not Trump’s, as many present it. These are Johnson’s thoughts and suggestions for what Trump could offer Putin. I’ll summarize what’s written there: the return of Ukraine to the borders as of February 24, 2022, leaving Crimea under Russian Federation control, guaranteeing Ukraine’s entry into the EU and NATO, replacing about 70,000 American soldiers at US bases in the European Union with the Ukrainian army, which would significantly save costs for the United States, and some special status for the Russian language. What do you think of such a proposal from Johnson?
– Well, it’s an unattainable dream, whether it’s a dream or a plan of some kind, it’s just unattainable on various fronts, practically each one.
It’s something impossible to fulfill. It’s impossible, for example, to remove Crimea from Ukraine’s Constitution.
Simply impossible. Leaving Crimea under Russia’s control means annexation, which would allow the annexation of Crimea to take place, and annexation means both states agreeing to it.
Russia would incorporate Crimea into its Constitution, and we would have to remove Crimea from ours, which is technically impossible.
Why?
Because just the idea of such actions would lead to civil war within Ukraine and would at least destroy the government quarter.
Everyone understands this, and no one would go for such a scam, regardless of what is being concocted.
The withdrawal of Russians to the 2024 borders on their own is also impossible. Why? Imagine Putin’s face as he says, “Well, pack your bags and head back to Russia from Mariupol, Berdyansk, Avdiivka, Bakhmut.”
Can you imagine that?
So, there are realistic things and unrealistic things. The Russians can only be driven out of our territory militarily; all other paths are just fantasy, simply unrealistic.
There is only one mechanism, which is combat engagement and destruction using long-range weapons.
This is very important.
Why?
Because now missiles are emerging, we even see ATACMS and are working with them. Soon planes will arrive, and we’ll work with planes.
It’s crucial to save the lives of our soldiers. It’s essential so that no one thinks about rushing in and losing tens of thousands of Ukrainians just to hold a parade in Kyiv on August 24th with grand victory proclamations and without Zaluzhny.
To prevent such thoughts, it’s better to wait for long-range weapons, aviation, and a sufficient number of missiles and then carry out the task of liberating our territory as a secondary objective.
Now I’ll explain why it’s secondary. It’s the second task. The first is to destroy the enemy’s army.
Our main task should be the destruction of the enemy army. The second task, the liberation of territory, is a consequence of fulfilling the first task.
If the half-million Russian army is eliminated somewhere near Pokrovsk or Donetsk, the rest of the territory will be automatically liberated.
The concept of conducting military operations needs to change; it’s time to finally shift them to the air.
Pilots should handle this matter as much as possible, meaning about 70% of combat operations should be handled by aviation, long-range weapons, and missiles, which will reduce, ideally to zero, our losses on the ground.
Infantry should only be used for clearing territories almost liberated from the Russian army.
That’s the general idea. Johnson may be sharing his thoughts on what Trump could do based on the options he has.
But Trump won’t force the Russians out of Crimea.
Why?
Because it would be the collapse of the Russian empire if they left Crimea on their own. They might somehow hold on if we drive them out, but if they start leaving Crimea themselves, the entire empire will naturally collapse in a few years.
That’s also impossible.
So Johnson is balancing on the edge of possibility. But including the language issue or presenting it as almost a primary factor, a major concession for Putin, this Russian language issue in Ukraine, and generally the Russian question, is very bad. Because such proposals could lead to political assassinations of pro-Ukrainian radicals, and I mean direct murders, as a way to demonstrate action on this issue.
This is very bad.
Johnson, whether out of thoughtlessness, ignorance, or God forbid, malicious intent, might have triggered a process of political assassinations.
There is this problem, and Johnson should either avoid bringing up such topics in the information stream or not touch on them at all, because they can lead to major problems within Ukraine.
This particular issue is problematic and unclear who inspired him, but it’s an issue that should not be raised within Ukraine.
Putin initially stirred up the situation on the language issue, then moved on to persecutions of Russians, and so forth.
So, I wouldn’t have expected this from Johnson. It’s one thing to maneuver Putin, but another to throw such controversial topics into the information space.
