At a glance:
- Recent reports suggest Boris Johnson’s April 2022 visit to Kyiv influenced Ukraine’s decision to abandon potential peace negotiations with Russia.
- A tentative peace agreement discussed in Istanbul proposed Ukrainian neutrality and Russian withdrawal to pre-February 2022 positions.
- The role of Western leaders, including Johnson, in encouraging Ukraine to reject peace talks has fueled debates on their influence in prolonging the conflict.
In the spring of 2022, during the early months of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, reports emerged of potential peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow. The Istanbul talks, mediated by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, reportedly resulted in a provisional draft agreement outlining terms for ending hostilities. These terms included Ukraine’s neutrality, Russian withdrawal to pre-invasion positions, and security guarantees for Ukraine from key international powers. However, the negotiations ultimately faltered, and new revelations have cast former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s role during this critical period into the spotlight.
Johnson’s April Visit and Its Impact
Boris Johnson’s unannounced visit to Kyiv on April 10, 2022, raised eyebrows, particularly as it coincided with a pivotal moment in the Istanbul peace negotiations. Johnson reportedly advised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky not to compromise with Moscow, emphasizing two key points: Russian President Vladimir Putin could not be trusted, and Western nations were not ready for the conflict to end. According to accounts from Ukrainian and international sources, Johnson’s stance aligned with a broader Western strategy to pressure Russia militarily and diplomatically rather than seeking immediate negotiations.
Ukrainian parliamentary leader David Arakhamia later claimed that Western reluctance to provide Ukraine with credible security guarantees also played a role in derailing talks. While Ukraine was willing to consider neutrality, its leaders insisted on enforceable security measures—a demand Western nations hesitated to meet. Reports suggest that Johnson reassured Zelensky of continued Western military and financial support if Kyiv opted to continue resisting Moscow’s aggression.
Three days after Johnson’s visit, Putin declared that peace talks had reached a “dead end,” further fueling speculation about the West’s role in undermining the negotiations. Critics have since argued that Johnson’s intervention was pivotal in persuading Zelensky to reject what some perceived as a favorable deal for Ukraine.
A Complex Negotiation Landscape
The draft agreement from Istanbul highlighted the concessions both sides were willing to entertain. Ukraine was reportedly open to adopting a neutral status, refraining from NATO membership, and limiting foreign military presences on its soil. In return, Russia agreed to withdraw to pre-invasion positions while maintaining control over Crimea and parts of the Donbas region.
However, unresolved issues lingered. Disputes over the size of Ukraine’s postwar military, the status of Russian-occupied territories, and language policies remained contentious. Moscow’s demand for Kyiv to lift sanctions and drop cases against Russia in international courts further complicated the talks. The lack of trust between the parties, exacerbated by Russia’s prior violations of agreements like the Minsk Accords, made the prospect of a lasting peace tenuous at best.
Western skepticism of Putin’s intentions was another significant factor. Observers argue that Johnson’s hardline position reflected broader doubts among NATO allies about Russia’s willingness to honor any agreement. Retired U.S. Colonel Douglas MacGregor later suggested that both London and Washington viewed the Istanbul framework as strategically premature, preferring to weaken Russia further through continued conflict.
Contrasting Views on Johnson’s Role
Opinions remain divided on the extent of Johnson’s influence in scuttling the talks. Some analysts, such as Klaus Larres, argue that Johnson’s visit solidified Zelensky’s determination to reject a compromise. Ukrainian leaders, inspired by Johnson’s Churchillian rhetoric, chose to prioritize territorial sovereignty over a hastily brokered peace.
Conversely, Emma Ashford of the Stimson Center contends that blaming Johnson oversimplifies a complex situation. She points to other factors, such as unresolved territorial disputes, mutual distrust, and Ukraine’s insistence on concrete security guarantees, as primary obstacles to an agreement. While Johnson’s intervention may have reinforced Kyiv’s stance, Ashford argues that the talks were likely doomed due to the lack of consensus among all stakeholders.
David Hendrickson, writing in The National Interest, echoes this view, suggesting that Ukraine’s leadership was already skeptical of Russia’s intentions and viewed Western support as a critical lifeline. Hendrickson asserts that Johnson’s visit merely reaffirmed existing Ukrainian doubts about the feasibility of a settlement.
Lessons for Future Diplomacy
The failed negotiations of 2022 have fueled broader debates about the role of Western nations in shaping Ukraine’s wartime strategy. While some critics argue that Johnson and other Western leaders prioritized geopolitical goals over immediate peace, others maintain that Kyiv’s rejection of the Istanbul framework was a necessary decision to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty.
What remains clear is the need for trust and enforceable guarantees in any future negotiations. The Istanbul talks demonstrated that both sides were willing to make concessions under the right conditions. However, conflicting interests, unresolved disputes, and skepticism about Russian reliability ultimately derailed the process.
As the war grinds on, with no end in sight, the lessons of 2022 underscore the importance of aligning Western and Ukrainian objectives. While Western leaders were instrumental in rallying support for Ukraine’s resistance, their influence also raises questions about the balance of power in determining the conflict’s trajectory.
Boris Johnson’s role in Kyiv’s decision to walk away from peace talks remains a subject of heated debate. Whether his intervention prolonged the war or reinforced Ukraine’s resolve, the episode highlights the complexities of diplomacy in a high-stakes conflict. For Ukraine and its allies, finding a sustainable path to peace will require addressing the unresolved tensions and mistrust that scuttled the Istanbul negotiations—before the human and economic costs become even more staggering.