In a recent interview with GB News, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson issued a stark warning that if Ukraine faces defeat in its ongoing war with Russia, the United Kingdom could be forced to consider deploying British troops. Johnson, a staunch supporter of Kyiv, cautioned that such a scenario would carry profound security implications for Europe, the United States, and beyond, potentially dragging other regions into crisis. Johnson’s remarks come amid fears that potential changes in US leadership might impact support for Ukraine, heightening concerns about the stability of the European security framework.

Describing military aid to Ukraine as a “sensible investment,” Johnson argued that ongoing support for Kyiv was essential to preventing greater, long-term security expenses for the UK. The former prime minister suggested that if Ukraine were to fall, the impact would extend beyond Europe, risking further destabilization in the Baltic states, Georgia, and even the South China Sea. According to Johnson, “our collective security will be really degraded by a resurgent Russia threatening all sorts of parts of Europe.” This perspective reinforces his belief that sustained financial and military support to Ukraine is a prudent use of public funds.

Johnson’s argument, however, highlights a larger debate within the UK and other Western countries: Is supporting Ukraine an affordable and wise investment, or is it a costly endeavor with uncertain outcomes? Critics within the UK argue that the mounting costs of assisting Ukraine could detract from addressing domestic issues. Johnson, on the other hand, views these costs as minimal compared to the dangers of a “resurgent Russia” emboldened by a Ukrainian defeat.

Johnson’s interview also addressed concerns about diminishing US support for Ukraine, particularly in light of the recent election of Donald Trump as president. Johnson expressed worry over certain voices within Trump’s circle who, in his view, take an unfavorable stance on Ukraine. Some Republican leaders have indeed voiced skepticism about US support for Ukraine, citing domestic issues as a higher priority. Johnson warned that if the US were to reduce or halt its aid to Kyiv, the UK might need to step in even further, potentially deploying British forces to bolster Ukraine’s defense.

The possibility of a significant reduction in US aid to Ukraine remains a looming concern for British policymakers, many of whom see American involvement as crucial to maintaining the balance of power in Europe. If a Trump administration were to recalibrate US foreign policy toward Ukraine, it could put increased pressure on the UK, France, and other European allies to fill the void, potentially escalating their involvement. Johnson’s warning may be an attempt to shore up bipartisan support for Ukraine within the UK while cautioning against isolationist tendencies he perceives in Trump’s Republican allies.

The Kremlin has consistently warned that Western military support for Ukraine increases the risk of direct confrontation with NATO, with Russian officials emphasizing that they have no intentions of attacking NATO territories unless provoked. Moscow has also outlined its stance on foreign intervention in the Ukrainian conflict, treating Western-supplied long-range missiles targeting Russia as direct assaults by the supplying countries. Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin altered the country’s nuclear doctrine to include non-nuclear attacks from adversaries supported by nuclear powers as a possible trigger for a nuclear response.

This adjustment underscores Moscow’s heightened sensitivity to Western involvement in Ukraine and suggests that any troop deployments from NATO countries could be seen as a direct escalation. Such statements are part of a broader Russian narrative framing NATO as an aggressor. Johnson’s rhetoric about deploying UK troops risks reinforcing Moscow’s position that Western nations are not merely supporting Ukraine but are actively antagonizing Russia.

Johnson’s latest comments are not his first foray into advising or supporting Ukraine, often controversially. In early 2022, Johnson made a surprise visit to Kyiv as Russia and Ukraine were engaged in peace negotiations in Istanbul. Reports suggest that significant progress was being made at the time, with Ukrainian lawmaker and chief negotiator David Arakhamia later revealing that Kyiv had stepped back from the talks after Johnson advised Ukrainian leaders to hold their ground rather than negotiate. This intervention reportedly swayed Kyiv toward a prolonged military engagement with Russia, setting a precedent for Western encouragement of Ukraine’s resistance.

Russian officials, including Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, have accused Johnson of actively undermining peace by encouraging Ukraine to adopt a more combative stance against Russia. According to Zakharova, Johnson’s influence played a role in steering Ukraine away from a possible peace agreement in 2022, an accusation the former prime minister has denied. “Britain has been involved in anti-Russian activities for several years now,” Zakharova said, claiming that the UK’s involvement includes supplying intelligence, funding, and weapons to Kyiv. In her view, Johnson’s call for UK troop deployment is an extension of his “provocative” approach to Russian-UK relations.

Alongside Johnson’s comments, recent reports in The Telegraph suggest that the UK, together with France, might push for more aggressive support for Ukraine. According to these reports, London and Paris may lobby Washington to permit Kyiv to launch strikes deep within Russian territory, using Western weapons such as the Storm Shadow/Scalp cruise missiles. This potential escalation would mark a significant intensification of the conflict and would likely trigger a severe response from Russia.

If such strikes were allowed, Russia could interpret them as acts of war by the countries supplying the weapons, leading to further retaliatory actions. The possibility of British and French troop involvement, combined with a shift in Western tactics to support strikes inside Russian borders, could lead to a full-blown confrontation between NATO and Russia.

If the UK were to follow through on Johnson’s suggestion and deploy troops to Ukraine, it would break a long-standing policy of indirect involvement in the conflict, increasing the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia. Russia’s leaders have already issued unambiguous threats concerning NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, with high-ranking officials warning of severe consequences. In a recent statement, Russian State Duma Deputy Chairman Pyotr Tolstoy threatened that Russian forces would “kill all French soldiers who set foot on Ukrainian soil.”

Such rhetoric underscores the danger of foreign troops in Ukraine, which could prompt Moscow to take extreme measures to repel what it views as a Western invasion. Johnson’s hypothetical call to action may also be an attempt to prepare the British public for the possibility of increased involvement, framing it as a necessary measure to prevent future threats to European security.

Johnson’s assertion that the UK must be prepared to intervene directly if necessary comes amid growing public scrutiny over military spending and the costs of supporting Ukraine. For many Britons, the question of deploying troops is contentious, especially given the financial and logistical strains of recent years. While Johnson frames military aid as a “good investment” in national security, others worry that increasing involvement could escalate into a prolonged and costly engagement for the UK.

Looking ahead, the direction of Western policy on Ukraine will likely hinge on US foreign policy under a Trump administration and the actions of European leaders. Johnson’s calls for a prepared and resolute stance may resonate with UK leaders who share his concerns over Russian aggression, but direct intervention could still face considerable public resistance.

As the situation unfolds, the decisions of leaders like Boris Johnson may play a pivotal role in shaping the level of Western involvement. While he remains a divisive figure in the UK, Johnson’s warnings are a reminder of the stakes at play and the risks associated with a potential Ukrainian defeat. Whether his calls for potential troop deployment materialize or not, Johnson’s stance signals a willingness among some Western leaders to consider all options in the face of perceived threats to European security.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel