As usual, your writing is both thoughtful and poignant, and I appreciate it.
I didn't expect I'd ever defend Johnson about anything, but I don't think he should be singled out in this particular case. If I remember the discussions at the time correctly, the guarantees Zelenskyy wanted would have amounted to article 5 protection without actual NATO membership - and just as NATO states aren't prepared to fight Russia over Ukraine in this war, they weren't (aren't) prepared to commit to fighting for Ukraine in the future.
I would rather assume Johnson was chosen to be the bearer of bad news about this because of his good rapport with Zelenskyy, than him bumbling into sabotaging a nascent peace agreement all on his own.
As usual, your writing is both thoughtful and poignant, and I appreciate it.
I didn't expect I'd ever defend Johnson about anything, but I don't think he should be singled out in this particular case. If I remember the discussions at the time correctly, the guarantees Zelenskyy wanted would have amounted to article 5 protection without actual NATO membership - and just as NATO states aren't prepared to fight Russia over Ukraine in this war, they weren't (aren't) prepared to commit to fighting for Ukraine in the future.
I would rather assume Johnson was chosen to be the bearer of bad news about this because of his good rapport with Zelenskyy, than him bumbling into sabotaging a nascent peace agreement all on his own.