Bring back Boris – to lead the Nato alliance
The West’s dithering over crucial military hardware for Kyiv has to stop, before Putin regains the initiative
All the indications are that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is preparing to double down on his military assault against Ukraine by launching a new spring offensive aimed at regaining the initiative in the year-long conflict.
A clear sign that Putin is determined to reverse the humiliating losses of last year was the appointment of General Valery Gerasimov, the head of Russia’s armed forces, to take personal charge of the military preparations. As the architect of the so-called “Gerasimov Doctrine”, the general is an acknowledged master of waging all-out war, using all the levers of power available to the Russian state, from cyber attacks to economic blackmail, in order to achieve total victory.
After the mauling that Russian forces suffered in 2022, however, his focus is likely to be more parochial as he attempts to transform his defeated and demoralised conscript army into a credible fighting force. During the winter months, elite Russian units
– or rather what is left of them – have been withdrawn from the frontline to undergo rigorous retraining.
The lessons of the disastrous performance last year have been learned, with ammunition depots no longer sitting ducks and supply routes being made less predictable. Ukrainian commanders have reported that their Russian adversaries have already begun to adjust their tactics to better effect, even if the Kremlin’s commanders continue to show the same casual disregard for the welfare of their troops that has already resulted in Russian soldiers dying in their tens of thousands.
It is therefore vital that the Ukrainian military receives the weaponry it desperately needs if it is to prevail against what promises to be a better organised and resourced Russian foe in the months ahead – something Western leaders finally seem to have acknowledged with their decision to equip Kyiv with heavy armour, including tanks.
Yet no sooner had the West indicated that it remains steadfast in its support for the Ukrainian cause than another issue arose that raises fresh doubts about the level of its commitment, this time over whether to supply Kyiv with modern warplanes.
It is a basic principle of modern warfare that armies do not deploy tanks and other heavy armour in ground offensives without proper air protection. To do so makes them, as Gerasimov well understands, vulnerable to enemy attack, and the Russians have shown their determination to target Westernmade tanks by offering a cash bounty of five million rubles (£60,000) for their destruction or capture.
To prevent such a catastrophe, the Ukrainians are asking the United States and allies such as Britain to donate fighter jets that will provide proper air cover. But, just as happened in the dispute over supplying tanks, Western leaders are proving reluctant to accede to the request, citing technical issues as well as concerns that such a move would result in an escalation of tensions between Moscow and Nato.
The West’s lukewarm response is disappointing, as it suggests that there are limits to how far its leaders are prepared to go in backing Kyiv. Ukraine is well within its rights under the terms of the UN Charter to acquire Western weaponry to defend its sovereignty. So long as it is Ukrainian pilots who are at the controls, the issue of where the warplanes originated is not Moscow’s concern.
Moreover, as Boris Johnson, who is in the US lobbying for the Joe Biden administration to increase its support for Ukraine, has argued, giving the Ukrainians the equipment they require is essential if they are to prevail against any future Russian counter-offensive. It will ultimately “save time, save money, save lives”.
Johnson’s unequivocal support for the Ukrainian cause has been one of the more constant features of the West’s response to the crisis, especially when compared with the endless prevarication of President Biden and the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.
Johnson’s enthusiasm for backing Ukraine – which has clearly not diminished since leaving Downing Street – has even seen him touted as a possible contender to be Nato’s next secretary general, a position that becomes vacant later this year when Jens Stoltenberg, the incumbent, stands down.
Having someone with Johnson’s passion for defeating despots such as Putin at Nato’s helm would certainly help the organisation generate a sense of moral purpose.
Apart from making sure that Russia does not succeed in its quest to subject Ukraine to its will, Nato needs to confront the challenge posed by recalcitrant member states such as Turkey, which is currently blocking Sweden’s attempts to join the alliance, a move that would undoubtedly strengthen Nato’s northern flank.
It may well be that Johnson has other priorities on his mind – potentially including positioning himself for a dramatic return to Downing Street. But, if not, would he consider leading Nato? The alliance desperately needs a new sense of purpose and to bring an end to the dithering that has too often characterised the response of its members to the Ukraine crisis.