Lorraine Tilbury

The Daily Mail has published an article by Boris Johnson entitled ‘Putin has a plan for Ukraine – a hideous and genocidal one. We’re all disgusted at Trump’s betrayal, but what is Europe’s plan to end this terrible war?’. And it very accurately raises the question not only of yet another blow dealt by the Trump administration to Ukraine, but also of the fact that Europe has still not formulated its own plan to end the war. This is a very telling article, given that Johnson once supported Trump and sincerely believed that he would be on the side of good. Johnson begins with the story of Starshield. According to him, during yet another Russian attack, Ukrainian interceptor drones suddenly lost the ability to function properly due to restrictions imposed on the military version of Starlink. The decision to impose these technical restrictions was taken in the US without warning Ukraine. “The Ukrainians had indeed been betrayed. It was the White House that had ordered a technical change to the operation of the Starshield system, a military version of Elon Musk’s Starlink, so that the interceptor drones became suddenly useless.” “We feel a sense of dizziness, as though the team captain of the free world has suddenly been caught playing for the other side.” The US effectively interfered with Ukraine’s defence efforts at a time when Russia was continuing to strike at Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. “Someone acting in the service of the President of the USA decided wilfully to sabotage the defences of a free, democratic and blameless people.” Johnson links the reason to the diesel controversy. The US started a war with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, oil prices soared, and the Trump administration decided to shift the blame onto Ukraine for the strikes on Russian oil refineries. “So his brilliant diversionary strategy is to find a new culprit for the diesel price spike. He blames the Ukrainians, for attacking Putin’s oil refineries. Which is utterly ridiculous.” Johnson points out that the Ukrainian campaign against Russian oil refining has been successful and has indeed made it more difficult for Russia to export fuel. However, the sharp rise in global prices was caused not by Ukrainian strikes, but by the US war with Iran. “It wasn’t Zelenskyy whose rash and ill-thought-out military action led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.” On the contrary, Ukraine is doing exactly what the West has been demanding for the past four years: cutting into Russia’s energy revenues and striking at one of the main sources of funding for the war. Separately, Johnson refers to the Lindsey Graham Sanctions Act, which grants Trump vast powers to put pressure on buyers of Russian energy resources. “If he were actually to use this Bill as intended, and cut off Putin’s main source of income, then he could help to bring the Russian tyrant swiftly to the table and get the war over.” But Trump has done the opposite: “So as things stand, the US government is not only willing to sabotage Ukraine’s defences, it is actually proposing to fund the Russian bombs.” “Why it is that this US President is so bewilderingly weak towards Putin” Johnson mentions possible compromising information and potential future business deals between Trump’s inner circle and Russia, but admits he has no answer. For him, something else is more important: Ukraine is critically dependent on American communications, intelligence and technology, and therefore Europe must urgently compensate for the risks created by Washington. But the main problem is not Trump, but Europe itself. According to Johnson’s conclusion, the West has still not done enough to put pressure on Putin: Russian assets have not been confiscated, Russian gas continues to be purchased, and, most importantly, the US, the UK, France and Germany have still not defined what the end of the war should look like. “We haven’t done enough to put pressure on Putin; we haven’t unfrozen his assets; Europeans still buy large quantities of Russian gas.” “Neither side of the Atlantic – no one in Washington, London, Paris or Berlin – has been remotely clear enough about the terms on which Ukraine needs to finish the war.” “The Ukrainians have fought heroically and they are winning. Putin’s losses are unsustainable – 50,000 last month. He cannot recruit replacements fast enough.” But Putin, according to Johnson, will continue the war until he receives an absolutely unequivocal signal from the West that the subjugation of Ukraine is impossible. “Ukraine must and will be free, and that Ukrainian freedom will be guaranteed within the western security architecture, and that means NATO.” Johnson poses a very simple question: “Putin hasn’t heard that message, or not for years – not even from this country. Why not? What are we afraid of?” His proposal is also simple: to transfer Russia’s frozen assets to Ukraine, to provide all the necessary technology, and to finally define Ukraine’s place within the Western security system. “The greatest thing we can give – the thing that will actually bring peace – is clarity about their future.” “I can understand the hysteria and disgust about the Trump-Putin deal. But disgust is not a plan.” “Putin has a plan for Ukraine, a hideous and genocidal plan. What is the western plan?”