Laura Kuenssberg (4:00)

You'd spoken to Vladimir Putin not that long before you told him if he went ahead, NATO troops would go to the Russian border. Did he lie to you?

Boris Johnson (4:11)

Of course he lied. And he lied right up to the very end. I mean, looking back on it, I think what we really, I don't think there was any way of stopping him in the sense that he'd made up his mind, I think way back. And he was determined to capture Ukraine, to conquer, to subjugate Ukraine. And I think what we really should have rammed home to him was that we regarded the freedom of Ukraine, the independence, the sovereignty of Ukraine as a strategic objective for the west, that we would invest huge sums to support Ukraine, and we didn't do that.

Laura Kuenssberg (4:51)

Other countries were more reluctant than you, and perhaps you as a payer were to make a very strong statement in response to the invasion.

Boris Johnson (4:59)

I think that, yes, I think that, you know, I remember at the Munich Security Conference, not long before the invasion, talking to the German delegation and first of all there was this sort of denial about whether it was actually going to happen, which was shared a bit by the French and others, but also sort of weird sense that maybe just from a purely humanitarian perspective, it might be a better thing if Ukraine folded and if the war was over rapidly. And, you know, this was completely alien to my way of thinking and seemed to be totally wrong.

Laura Kuenssberg (5:42)

What about suetoning in this country and in Whitehall?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (5:45)

My recollection is we then had some debates maybe about five days before the invasion, which was, okay, how will we respond when this happens? And that, that wasn't a categoric position to my mind, that was a Whitehall, a classic Whitehall debate of national interests. In this sense, do we do a Crimea again or do we respond more robustly? And then that was in the air. And then on the actual. The seven o' clock Cobra. My. I've always described it as a political tsunami. The prime minister then comes in. I think you were clear and categoric in terms of taking the decision that we were all with Ukraine. And then that morning, I think, was then a very political morning of the phones being manned and galvanizing the international community.

Laura Kuenssberg (6:38)

There was a moment in our political system when Ukraine might not have been supported in that way. It could have been another Crimea.

Boris Johnson (6:49)

If you remember, Tony and I were in lots of meetings in the run up and we could see this thing was going to happen. And our defense intelligence was telling us that Ukraine would struggle to last more than five or six days. Right. And I instinctively thought that was very curious because of what I'd seen of Ukraine, what I seen of Ukrainian military culture. I mean, that was really. I think that was, that was. There were a lot of conversations about that. But then I think that that changed very soon as the conflict began. I remember. So I, after I got the news about the invasion, I think my first call was to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, I think, I mean, it was pretty soon afterwards. And he was extraordinary and it was clear, you know, I said to him, look, you know, the key thing is that you protect yourself and you are the focus of resistance. If you go, then it'll be a disaster for Ukraine. You've got to be safe. Do you need to come somewhere else? Do you need to leave Kyiv? And he said, absolutely not, we're staying. Just get us the weapons that we need, get us the support that we need.

Laura Kuenssberg (8:03)

As you suggest, the expectation was that Kyiv might fall in a matter of days. And then this video emerged of Zelenskyy walking around an empty Kyiv with some of his colleagues. Do you remember seeing those images?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (8:21)

I don't know if we thought Kyiv was going to fall within date. I think that that was always up for debate and so on. But the images to me that were really striking was the battle over Hostomel, just to the north of Kyiv, which we knew was key to Russia's plans. And the Ukrainians were magnificent. But that changed hands between Russia and Ukraine about five or six times over a couple of days. And then the Other piece that then, because of Hostomer and because Ukraine was successful in not allowing Russia to get a lodgment there, that was the image that I always remember, was of all that armor in the convoy that was stuck.

Boris Johnson (9:04)

That was amazing. What happened was that the Russian plan was basically to take Hostomel, which is, as Teddy says, the airport just north of Cuba, and then all the tanks and armour were going to come down without their crews and everything else, because they were all going to land by air, but because the Ukrainians fought so hard at the airport, you had all these pointless sort of uber like, convoy of. Of tanks without crews, and the Russians couldn't advance.

Laura Kuenssberg (9:37)

Before we move on, though, to the conduct then of the war. Do you think, though, that the UK and its Western allies were naive? Did they enable the invasion in the first place by allowing Crimea to be taken in 2014 and simply successive UK governments not taking this seriously enough when Putin's increasing aggression was there for everyone to see?

Boris Johnson (10:03)

I do think that. And I think that the failure to do anything in Crimea in 2014 was tragic. I think that Putin was emboldened by Western failure in Syria to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. I think that Putin was further emboldened in 2022, in February 2022, but by what he'd seen in Afghanistan and a sort of general sense that the west was on the back foot. He'd seen these appalling pictures of Americans being forced to FLE Afghanistan, the UK pulling out as well, of course, and I think that really did embolden him. So, yes, sadly, I think the answer to your question is yes, it wasn't helped by the. The general ambiguity of the Western position. We could have solved this problem if we'd been clear about what Ukraine was. We'd continually said to them, you can join NATO and you're on the path to the West. But we never made good that promise. I think if we'd had clarity and simplicity about Ukraine rather than endless fudge and obscurity, we could have saved. We could have saved that. We could have prevented that invasion by being strong.

Laura Kuenssberg (11:28)

As somebody who was a leading politician for much of that time, do you personally regret that if the west in general had stood up and taken a stronger line to Putin, as you suggest, perhaps this war could have been avoided. Do you have personal regrets?

Boris Johnson (11:42)

I mean, I think I wasn't obviously in office in 2014. I think I was mayor of London, but, you know.

Laura Kuenssberg (11:48)

But then later you went as far as.

Boris Johnson (11:49)

But I do think. I do think I Do think we should have done more. And so, yeah, when I became Foreign Secretary In 2016, we were running Project Operation Orbital, for instance. We were training the Ukrainians. We were out there trying to help them in all sorts of ways. But by then, you know, there was this fundamental ambiguity and uncertainty about our attitude to Ukraine. And I've got to say I think that is still there. The real problem is with Ukraine that 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. And until he sees the evidence that that is our determination, I think he's just going to keep going. And that's the problem we're in. It's that fundamental lack of resolve.

Laura Kuenssberg (12:53)

There's been a pattern we've seen many times where President Zelenskyy has said, give me this missile or give me this bit of kit. Western leaders have said, oh, maybe not yet, maybe in a while. It's often dragged on for many, many months. And then in the end, the west does often oblige. Do you think that the UK and its Western allies have been too slow and too cautious in giving President Zelenskyy what he's asking for?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (13:18)

There was always escalation, anxiety and that, you know, and if you look, I think then it then in a way played to the uk The UK leading with N laws, the UK leading with our main battle tanks, leading with Storm Shadow, and, and each time others would then follow and each time the reported red lines of Putin evaporated. So I think it's that. But if you're in Kyiv, then this feels like incrementalism. It feels like it's too slow and it's deeply frustrating. And those tensions have existed all the way through.

Laura Kuenssberg (13:57)

Has that Western caution cost lives and prolonged the conflict?

Boris Johnson (14:01)

Of course, I think we've always delayed needlessly. We've then ended up giving the Ukrainians what they've been asking for. And actually it's always served to their advantage and to the disadvantage of Putin. I mean, the one person who suffers from escalation is Putin. We're in exactly the same position today because of course people are saying, oh well, we mustn't give the Ukrainians the long range Tomahawk cruise missiles with which they could take out the factories and far from the border that are making these shaheed missiles. And they say there's a risk of escalation. We're having exactly the same argument again. And night after night you're seeing Putin Sadistically torturing Ukraine, destroying the energy, the electricity infrastructure, killing civilians in their apartment blocks with these missiles, which could be destroyed, the factories could be destroyed if we gave the Ukrainians the wherewithal. And, you know, we've just got to learn the lessons of the last four years. What we're doing, I'm afraid, is continually giving the Ukrainians too late. Just enough to stop them from losing, but not enough to help them bring the war to a successful conclusion for Ukraine. That's the problem.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (15:21)

So the war is escalating and the war's escalating on both sides. So last year Russia conducted over 50,000 long range drone attacks.

Laura Kuenssberg (15:32)

50,000.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (15:32)

Then you've got a lot more cruise missiles. Now you've also got ballistic missiles. The bit that is really cruel and callous is that Russia is conducting that campaign against the Ukraine population. It's failing, it's failed to break their morale and resolve this winter. But the war is escalating and Ukraine is fighting back. Ukraine has gone deeper into Russia, but as Mr. Johnson says, that the orthodoxy in the military is that you want to take out the archer rather than the arrows. So you need to go deeper in order to relieve the battle in the close. And that's where Russia is at an advantage. And Ukraine needs more help.

Laura Kuenssberg (16:18)

What should then that help be? I mean, you're arguing for something more dramatic, more radical to bring this to a close.

Boris Johnson (16:25)

You need to flip a switch in Putin's brain. So he really thinks actually the outcome of this war is going to be, I may hold on de facto to some of the land that I've taken, but the outcome is going to be a free, sovereign, independent, westward facing Ukraine. And I've just got to accept that fact. I've got to take what I can, but I've got to accept that reality. But he's nowhere near that yet. And to get him into that position, I think we need to show that we're willing to give the Ukrainians the military support. I think that we need to impound his shadow fleet. And I think you need to do much more on the financial support for Ukraine.

Laura Kuenssberg (17:04)

But you've also written in the last week that there should be boots on the ground, European forces in Ukraine, not to fight, but to show intent. Why? Because some people are going to hear that and think, hang on, we don't want to get involved in anything like that. That's going too far.

Boris Johnson (17:20)

If we're going to have a plan for boots on the ground, I may be going in advance of a lot of thinking in the UK at the moment. But 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? Just to make this point that it is up to the Ukrainians. I mean, these people wouldn't be there in a war fighting capacity. Right.

Laura Kuenssberg (17:48)

To be clear, you're saying that right now that UK military forces and from other European countries should go to Ukraine, to safe parts of Ukraine to make a statement, to flip that switch, as you said in Vladimir Putin's head, showing intent.

Boris Johnson (18:01)

Yes, I think we're 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? There's no logical reason that I can see why we shouldn't send some peaceful ground forces that to show our support, our constitutional support for free, independent Ukraine, that this is a political thing. It's about whether Ukraine is a free country or not. If it's a vassal state of Russia, which is what Putin wants, then obviously it's up to Putin to decide who comes to his country. If it's not, then it's up to the Ukrainians.

Laura Kuenssberg (18:45)

And what do you make in recent weeks of European leaders saying that they are stepping up, they are taking on more strategic roles, they're going to have much more unified defence?

Boris Johnson (18:56)

I think it would be a great thing. I mean, come on. I think if Europe wants to get its act together, then that's a wonderful thing. But I don't at the moment, Laura, see much sign of it. People are obsessed about the risk of so called escalation.

Laura Kuenssberg (19:11)

And what do you mean?

Boris Johnson (19:12)

The lesson of the last four years is that the person who benefits from that nervousness is Putin.

Laura Kuenssberg (19:21)

How important is President Zelenskyy's leadership been to the Ukrainians being able to fight this far?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (19:28)

It's been utterly pivotal. You have to galvanize your country to maintain the morale. You have to carry on with the economy running, you have to fight the war. And you also have to have this extraordinary international network to ensure that you get the support to enable you to do all of those. That. That's exhausting and it takes an emotional toll as well. So I think he's been incredible. One of the other bits, one thing

Boris Johnson (19:59)

we should also be stressing for our viewers, Tony, is what an incredible job the Ukrainians have done. I mean, it is still the case that after four years of war, Putin, who supposedly possessed the most powerful military for second most powerful on Earth has only been able to take less than 20% of Ukrainian land. And, yes, I mean, Zelensky has done an extraordinary job of marshaling his country and galvanizing Western support, but it's the heroes of the people of Ukraine.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (20:29)

And just on that. So we shouldn't Forget that in March 22nd is the peak of territory that Russia seized in Ukraine. That was about 27% then, now at about 19 or 20%, and they gain less than 1% a year. It was less than 1% in 2025. For these enormous losses, they're now at 1.3 million, either killed or injured. That's what's going on. That's what Ukraine is imposing on Russia. That's what is extraordinary.

Laura Kuenssberg (21:05)

Is President Zelensky, though, the leader who could really bring this to an end? We're not. Just because he's so associated with the conflict, not just because he's obviously had a troubled relationship with Donald Trump, but also because he's faced allegations of corruption in his government. Is he the man who actually is the right person to be able to bring this to an end?

Boris Johnson (21:24)

Well, I don't think it's for me to go into Ukrainian politics, particularly, except to say that I think Zelenskyy, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has done an amazing job, and I think he's an incredible leader, and I think that as long as he's the duly elected leader of the Ukrainian people, he deserves our complete encouragement and support.

Laura Kuenssberg (21:46)

But perhaps it is time for some concessions, because, as you say, Ukraine's managed to push Russia back a great deal, which is remarkable, given where things were a few years ago. But this war is in a dreadful stalemate. And if Western allies are not willing to step up in the way that you two would like to see, maybe it is time for him to accept some form of concessions. Can you see that happening?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (22:09)

But President Zelensky has already agreed to a, in effect, a conditional, you know, an unconditional ceasefire. It's Putin that just continues. And Putin will not change until the calculus is adjusted. It's about getting Putin to the table, because President Zelensky is already there and waiting.

Laura Kuenssberg (22:35)

Is the White House too weak in forcing him to the table?

Boris Johnson (22:38)

Well, I think. I think that we. As I. As I've said, I think that we all are. And, yes, I certainly think that, sadly, I think there is a delusion in the United States if they think that Putin wants peace. You know, Tony is absolutely right.

Laura Kuenssberg (22:51)

Have you told Donald Trump that? Of course.

Boris Johnson (22:54)

But I don't think that told him he's deluded. I don't think that we will fix this thing and I don't think we will end the war by asking the Ukrainians to make, as you were saying, to make further concessions. I mean, I don't think you should underestimate how much the Ukrainians want peace and, you know, really. And how. And actually how flexible they're willing to be. And, you know, if you look at where we've got to in the negotiations and the discussions about a, you know, what you do with the rest of Donetsk and how the Ukrainians could perhaps withdraw and create an economic zone, all this sort of stuff, these are incredible concessions that Zelensky would be asking his people to make. And he can only do it if he gets really powerful security guarantees. But the thing that's missing from all of this is Putin. You know, where is the evidence at the current rate of fire that Putin is going to agree anything like this plan? We've heard nothing from Moscow to suggest that they want to agree such a plan. On the contrary, what they want to see, which is what they're getting, is everybody turning around saying, well, come on, Zelenskyy, what else can you offer? Honestly, I don't think the Ukrainian people will be able to offer any more. What is needed now. And this is what I've told President, I told everybody so far as I have any influence in this matter. My view is very simple. It's that the way to end this thing is finally, psychologically to convince Putin that he made a strategic category error in thinking that he could simply reabsorb Ukraine into the Soviet empire. That that has failed. I think you would agree with that, Tony. It has failed. That project is over. It's a question of now how he presents that failure to the Russian people. And he has the wherewithal to explain it to them in terms that I think will be politically survivable for him.

Laura Kuenssberg (24:56)

It has also prompted a huge conversation here about how much we spend on defence now. So, Tony, I know you've welcomed the government's decision to spend more money on defence, but everyone watching knows that ministers in this country have not yet spelt out in black and white where all the money is going to come from for all this extra defence spending. How important is it to you that they spell out very quickly where the money is going to come from?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (25:21)

Well, we need to resolve the big decisions of last year, and we had a defence review. I and others welcomed that. It had some big elements to it. A momentous decision by The Prime Minister, which was to join NATO colleagues and to agree for an uplift of 3.5% by 2035, that I don't think people have recognised how substantial that decision was. And now you're seeing that being debated. It needs to be resolved so that then we can have what's called a defence investment plan. Then we can meet the commitments that the Prime Minister made, both financially but crucially, saceur, the general in charge of European safety, in terms of NATO, we can fulfill our part in his plan.

Laura Kuenssberg (26:13)

Can you describe in simple terms how important it is that the government tells the country soon where this money is going to come from?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (26:23)

We made, the Prime Minister made an international commitment. The reason for that commitment was, was because there is a war in Europe, Russia is weak but dangerous. We're safe as a country at the moment. We're a nuclear power, we're a member of NATO. We have America as our principal ally. But we need to invest in each of those in order to assure our nation that we will continue to be safe in the2030s. That's why we had a defence review. That's why NATO is galvanized around an operational plan and the need for more spending. And that has to be resolved.

Laura Kuenssberg (27:02)

It has to happen.

Boris Johnson (27:03)

Yes.

Laura Kuenssberg (27:04)

Has to happen quickly.

Boris Johnson (27:05)

Yes.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (27:06)

Because we're under a commitment from NATO and we've made that commitment and NATO is challenging us. Where is our plan?

Laura Kuenssberg (27:15)

And if not, we won't be safe?

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (27:17)

Well, we're safe because we're part of NATO and there are 31 other nations. But we're expected by those European nations to be a leader on defence and security. We're expected by America to be a leader on defence and security. And it's part of our commitment to those other nations that we play our part.

Laura Kuenssberg (27:39)

Boris Johnson, sir. Attorney Radican, thank you so much for speaking to us.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (27:43)

Thank you.

Laura Kuenssberg (27:49)

I hope you found that conversation interesting to listen to, to go back in time and to think about what might come. And Paddy and I will be along in your feeds any moment with a normal episode of Newscast, Newscast, newscast from the BBC.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (28:04)

You've come to the end of newscast. Some people, and you know who I mean, might say you ooze stamina. Can I encourage you to subscribe on BBC Sounds and you can get in touch with us anytime. Email us@newscastbc.co.uk you can WhatsApp us on 0301 239480.

Boris Johnson (28:30)

We focus on the part of the

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (28:31)

Internet that most people don't know about.

Boris Johnson (28:34)

It's called the Dark Web.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin (28:36)

Undercover in the furthest corners of the Dark Web, US Special agents are on a mission to locate and rescue children from abuse. Move in now from the BBC World Service World of Secrets. The Darkest Web follows their shocking investigations. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your BBC podcasts.