Four years after Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, a former British prime minister is asking a question that Western leaders have quietly avoided: If we’re willing to send troops after a ceasefire, why not send them now?
Boris Johnson, who was in Downing Street when the invasion began, has broken with the cautious consensus of his successors. In an exclusive interview with Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, he argued that the UK and its allies should deploy non-combat troops to peaceful regions of Ukraine immediately, not wait for a peace deal that may never come.
“If we can have a plan for boots on the ground after the war, after Putin has condescended to have a ceasefire, then why not do it now?” Johnson said.
Sitting beside him was Adm Sir Tony Radakin, the former head of the UK military—a man who helped architect the current “coalition of the willing” plan that would only deploy forces after a ceasefire. Their joint appearance signalled that Johnson’s view is not fringe.
‘Flip a Switch in Putin’s Head’
Johnson’s proposal is specific: British and allied troops would go to safe parts of Ukraine, not to fight but to demonstrate irrevocable commitment. The goal, he said, is psychological.
“If we are willing to do it in the context of a ceasefire, which of course puts all the initiative, all the power in Putin’s hands, why not do it now?” he asked. “Just to make this point that it is up to the Ukrainians.”
He described the effect he hopes for: to “flip a switch” in Vladimir Putin’s mind, convincing the Russian leader that the West regards Ukrainian sovereignty as an “overwhelming strategic objective.”
“That’s the problem we’re in. It’s that fundamental lack of resolve,” Johnson said. Putin “does not yet believe, or he has not yet been convinced, that the West regards it as an overwhelming strategic objective for Ukraine to be a free and independent European country.”
The Case Against Caution
Johnson and Radakin agreed that Western allies have been too slow and too cautious throughout the war. Radakin described the approach as “incrementalism” and said Ukraine feels it has been “too slow and it’s deeply frustrating—these tensions have existed all the way through.”
Johnson was blunter: the caution has cost lives.
“We’ve always delayed needlessly,” he said. “We’ve then ended up giving the Ukrainians what they have been asking for, and actually it’s always served to their advantage and to the disadvantage of Putin.”
He pointed to a pattern stretching back years: the failure to confront Putin over the 2014 annexation of Crimea, the weak response to chemical weapons use in Syria, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Each failure, he argued, emboldened the Russian leader.
“I do think that. The failure to do anything in Crimea was tragic,” Johnson said. “I think Putin was emboldened by a Western failure in Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. I think Putin was further emboldened in February 2022 by what he’d seen in Afghanistan, and a sort of general sense that the West was on the back foot.”
Johnson admitted regret for his own role during those years, when he served as foreign secretary and later prime minister. “I do think we should have done more,” he said.
The Risk
The proposal carries obvious dangers. Putin has already warned that any foreign troops on Ukrainian soil would be “legitimate targets”—a threat Johnson dismisses as bluster, but one that Western military planners take seriously.
The Ministry of Defence responded cautiously, highlighting existing support rather than engaging with Johnson’s proposal.
“We are proud of UK leadership on Ukraine—supporting the fight today and working to secure the peace tomorrow,” a spokesperson said. The government has provided a recent half-billion-pound air defence package and is accelerating £200 million to prepare for any Ukraine deployment—but only as part of a post-ceasefire “coalition of the willing.”
That coalition, which the UK is leading alongside over 30 nations, currently envisions troops entering Ukraine only after a peace deal. Johnson wants to flip the order: deploy now, and let Putin react.
The Defence Spending Question
Radakin used the interview to pressure the government on another front: the promised 3.5% defence spending target by 2035.
“We made, the prime minister made, an international commitment,” he said. “The reason for that commitment was because there is a war in Europe. Russia is weak, but dangerous.”
He warned that without investment, the UK’s safety cannot be assured into the 2030s. “Nato is challenging us. Where is our plan?”
The Analysis
As the war enters its fourth year, Johnson’s intervention cuts to the heart of a debate Western allies have avoided: is the strategy of calibrated support working, or is it merely prolonging the conflict without enabling victory?
His claim that nearly a decade of foreign policy failures emboldened Putin will be argued about for decades. But his specific proposal—to deploy troops now, not later—goes further than any current government plan.
The “coalition of the willing” was designed to prepare forces to support Ukraine if, and only if, there is a peace deal. Switching that mission to peacetime deployment would be a hugely significant political move. But it’s not impossible that allies could discuss alternatives: creating a safe zone in western Ukraine, opening Lviv airport, establishing a visible Western presence as a precursor to ceasefire negotiations.
Johnson’s frustration is evident, particularly given his ongoing links to Ukraine. He sees an allies’ response that has been enough for Ukraine to keep fighting, but never enough to end the war. He told the White House as much, he said: that it was “deluded” to believe Putin wants peace.
The question hanging over his interview is whether he’s right—and if so, what it would take for Western leaders to act on that truth.
