While denouncing the most recent Russian strike, former British prime minister Boris Johnson criticized the US idea for a truce in Ukraine.
In all honesty, how does this arrangement prevent a third Russian invasion? Johnson texted “nothing” on Thursday on X. A recent missile strike in Kyiv wounded 90 people and killed 12, prompting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cancel his trip to South Africa.
Johnson urged his partners to put further pressure on Russia and President Vladimir Putin in his response, and he demanded that Ukraine be given sufficient security guarantees.
In spite of the fact that Putin “indiscriminately butchers more Ukrainian civilians,” the former head of the Conservative Party claimed that Putin is being rewarded under the most recent American peace proposal.
Johnson voiced his disapproval, stating that Putin is being granted the right to retain the Ukrainian area that he illegally and violently seized.
“The opportunity to rebuild his (Putin’s) armed forces for the next assault in a few short years’ time,” he added, “The right to control Ukraine’s destiny by forbidding NATO membership; An economic partnership with America; The lifting of sanctions against Russia.”
After three years of “appalling sacrifices” and brave fight against a savage and unprovoked invasion, Johnson questioned what Ukraine would receive.
According to the British lawmaker, Ukraine would receive no benefits from the present plan other than the opportunity to share its natural riches with the US.
The United States, the United Kingdom, and other Western partners must offer Ukraine a real, adequately-funded security guarantee for the long term if they want to stop “more atrocities by Putin,” as Johnson put it.