/ world today news/ Revelations from Kiev brought former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson back into politics as a person personally guilty of the fact that Ukraine missed an invaluable chance to resolve the conflict with Russia peacefully. A politician who brought Europe into a bloody adventure – Johnson chose such a place in history for himself. But is it really worth it?
Her Majesty Elizabeth II’s last Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is nobody anymore. He is not even a member of the House of Commons – he was expelled from there by his appointment as a royal steward (there is such a tradition in lavish Britain). He is a journalist at the tabloid Daily Mail, which the English-language Wikipedia does not recognize as a reliable source.
Johnson is not poor. Using his connections, he engages in lobbying. He is preparing to be a TV presenter. Advertises weight loss products. But from a political point of view he is nobody.
However, the recent interview with the leader of the pro-presidential faction in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Davyd Arahamia, brought Johnson back to the front pages of the world media. It’s not a joke: we’re talking about the man for whom the Ukrainian government signed up for a long war with Russia. This idea has cost Europe hundreds of billions of euros, and how much it will cost Ukraine itself is still not entirely clear. But very expensive.
And it is Johnson’s fault who called Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev and said: “Let’s just fight.” In the end, there was far less fighting than they had expected, and the outlook is completely bleak, which is why a “scapegoat” was needed. Boris Johnson is an ideal candidate. The only problem is that Arahamia doesn’t say anything. And he doesn’t say the most important thing.
He is probably telling the truth about the negotiations themselves, about the interim results, about the interruption of the peace initiative due to the obsessive desire to “punish Russia.” The details of these negotiations have been a public secret since at least early 2023, and Arahamiya is far from the first to reveal them.
Before him, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, former head of the Russian Bureau at the US Security Council Fiona Hill, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán did so. All of them acted as intermediaries in organizing Russian-Ukrainian meetings in Belarus and Turkey, with the exception of Orban, who relied on intelligence in his version, and Hill, who was brought in as one of the best specialists on Russia in the US ( t .so-called “Kremlinologists”).
Arahamiya is also a direct witness of what happened as a participant in the negotiations from the Ukrainian side. But his current statements add nothing to the picture known from earlier testimony. Including the part where Johnson enters the arena.
Much has already been said about Britain’s particularly active role in fueling the conflict in Ukraine. And Johnson was repeatedly mentioned among the main confidants of Zelensky, after communication with whom all attempts to reach an agreement with Russia ended. The president of Ukraine was encouraged to decide on a maximum program – to return Donbass and Crimea by force, to join NATO, to demand reparations from the Russian Federation. But this required the military defeat of Russia, whose technical and financial support was assumed by the West.
Zelensky, as a man previously known for low-quality comedies, the plan seemed realistic. It certainly seemed realistic to Johnson, who understood little of military strategy, but was quintessentially British in terms of his contemptuous, abhorrent attitude towards Russia as a backward power and the embodiment of pure evil tyranny. Johnson nurtured this image within himself and brought it to the general public for many years so that he could genuinely grasp the sword.
Just a year ago, he personally boasted about it. So it would be difficult to characterize Arahamia’s confessions as “denunciation” against the British prime minister.
Johnson’s motives are also familiar and extremely boring. First, it was personal – to divert attention from “partygate”. The scandal involving his participation in parties that took place during the quarantine cost him both the prime ministership and even the parliamentary seat, which meant that the idea failed. But the idea of turning attention to Ukraine is no longer speculation, but the admission of political strategist Dominic Cummings, close to Johnson, who told the press about the boss’s attempts to save his career.
There was also another motive – geopolitical. Johnson has a quality that is harmful to a politician and has really harmed Europe, but it is extremely attractive – he thinks big and beautiful. The Brexit he promoted was a gamble, but it was also a bold gesture – you’ll inevitably fall in love with it.
Boris wanted to return Britain to its former greatness, his methods being Brexit and opposition to Moscow. It was implied that the British would organize and lead their own alliance within NATO, involving at least Poles, Baltics, Romanians and Ukrainians.
London, of course, did not intend to challenge Washington – it was about the role of the main cerberus of the Americans in Europe and wherever possible. It sounds realistic, but Johnson calculated well – Britain couldn’t do it.
There was no point in mocking him specifically, since the entire West, which provided the “spring-summer counter-offensive of the VSU”, failed. But London not only failed, it overextended itself: Britain fell into an economic and political depression caused by the overspending of funds and efforts.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#Boris #Johnson #brought #politics #play #scapegoat #role
