Boris Johnson's Ukraine NATO Plan: A Critical Analysis

Boris Johnson's Plan for Ukraine

In September 2023, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson published an article in The Spectator titled "It's time to let Ukraine join NATO". This piece attempted to formulate a theory of victory for Ukraine as the conflict with Russia continued to grind on. Johnson provided what he called a three-fold plan for Ukrainian victory:

1. End delays and "get it done" by lifting all restrictions on the use of Western long-range weapons on pre-2014 Russian territory.
2. Provide a package of loans on the scale of Lend-Lease, suggesting half a trillion or even a trillion dollars.
3. Allow Ukraine immediate membership into NATO, even as the conflict rages on.

Let's examine each of these proposals in detail and consider their potential implications.

Lifting Restrictions on Long-Range Weapons

Johnson's first proposal involves allowing Ukraine to use Western-supplied long-range weapons, such as ATACMS, Storm Shadow, and SCALP air-launched cruise missiles, to strike deep into Russian territory. The idea is to target high-value assets like air bases and ammunition depots.

However, this approach faces several challenges:

1. Ukraine has already been using long-range weapons to target Crimea, with limited success.
2. Escalating attacks on Russian soil could lead to a significant intensification of the conflict.
3. The supply of these weapons is limited, and production cannot be rapidly increased to meet demand.

Massive Financial Support

Johnson's second proposal calls for a massive financial package, comparable to the World War II Lend-Lease program. He argues that this level of support would send a message to the Kremlin that the West is prepared to outspend Russia in this conflict.

However, this proposal overlooks several critical factors:

1. Money alone cannot solve the current supply issues facing Western militaries.
2. The West's military-industrial base is not currently capable of producing the quantities of equipment and ammunition required, regardless of funding.
3. Expanding production capacity would take years, possibly a decade or more, involving:
   • Enlargement of existing facilities
   • Construction of new facilities
   • Expansion and training of the workforce
   • Reforming and expanding education systems
   • Expanding downstream suppliers
   • Acquiring additional raw materials

Immediate NATO Membership for Ukraine

Johnson's most controversial proposal is to grant Ukraine immediate NATO membership. He suggests extending Article 5 security guarantees to all Ukrainian territory currently under Kyiv's control, while affirming Ukraine's right to recapture occupied areas.

This proposal raises several significant concerns:

1. It could immediately draw NATO into direct conflict with Russia.
2. NATO lacks the military resources to effectively defend Ukraine without compromising its ability to respond to other global challenges.
3. It would fundamentally alter the nature of NATO and potentially undermine its credibility.

The Reality of Western Military Capabilities

To understand why Johnson's proposals are problematic, it's crucial to examine the current state of Western military capabilities:

1. Dwindling stockpiles: Recent reports indicate that US military aid packages to Ukraine have been shrinking due to concerns over Pentagon stockpiles.
2. Production limitations: Western arms manufacturers are struggling to meet the demand created by the conflict in Ukraine.
3. Shift in global military balance: The proliferation of advanced military technologies has reduced the disparity between Western militaries and potential adversaries.

Historical Context and Lessons

To better understand the current situation, it's helpful to consider some historical examples:

1. Israel's 2006 invasion of Southern Lebanon: This conflict revealed the limitations of Western military technology against well-equipped and trained opponents.
2. US intervention in Syria: The effectiveness of expensive Western military hardware was limited by improved air and missile defenses.
3. US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: While initially successful, these conflicts highlighted the limitations of high-tech, low-quantity weapon systems in protracted conflicts.

Implications of NATO Intervention

If NATO were to intervene directly in Ukraine, as Johnson suggests, several scenarios could unfold:

1. Russia might continue to target all of Ukraine's territory while carefully managing escalation.
2. NATO could escalate using long-range missiles and air power, but this would quickly deplete already limited Western stockpiles.
3. Direct intervention in Ukraine would consume what arms and ammunition the West has left, compromising its ability to respond to other global challenges.

The Broader Geopolitical Context

Johnson's proposals must be considered within the broader context of global power dynamics:

1. The conflict in Ukraine is part of a larger struggle over the future of the international order.
2. Western primacy is being challenged not just in Eastern Europe, but also in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region.
3. Committing significant resources to Ukraine could accelerate the decline of Western influence in other parts of the world.

Flaws in Johnson's Reasoning

Several key flaws can be identified in Johnson's approach:

1. Ignoring production limitations: Johnson's plan doesn't address the fundamental issue of insufficient arms production capacity.
2. Misunderstanding escalation dynamics: The proposal to immediately admit Ukraine to NATO fails to consider how Russia might respond.
3. Overlooking global implications: Focusing solely on Ukraine ignores the potential consequences for Western interests in other regions.
4. Mischaracterizing Russian motivations: Johnson frames the conflict as an attempt by Russia to rebuild an empire, rather than a response to NATO expansion.

The Irony of Empire

One of the most striking aspects of Johnson's article is his reference to a "Soviet Empire" that he claims Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to rebuild. This framing ignores several key points:

1. The conflict in Ukraine stems largely from NATO expansion towards Russia's borders.
2. The United States has played a significant role in shaping Ukraine's political direction since 2014.
3. The "empire" that Russia opposes in Ukraine is the same one that Johnson fears will be challenged in the Middle East and South China Sea.

The Dangers of Desperation

Johnson's plan can be seen as a product of desperation, born from:

1. A poor understanding of the fundamental factors required for its success.
2. A lack of imagination for alternatives to Western global dominance.
3. A refusal to acknowledge the changing nature of global power dynamics.

This desperation is particularly concerning given the nuclear capabilities of the nations involved. As the conflict in Ukraine draws to a close, potentially without achieving the West's desired outcomes, there is a risk of increasingly dangerous policy proposals emerging.

The Need for a New Approach

Rather than doubling down on failed strategies, a new approach to international relations is needed:

1. Acknowledge the reality of a multipolar world.
2. Seek diplomatic solutions that respect the security concerns of all parties.
3. Focus on rebuilding domestic industrial and economic capabilities rather than overextending military commitments.
4. Develop a more nuanced understanding of other nations' motivations and interests.

Conclusion

Boris Johnson's plan for Ukraine, while well-intentioned, is fundamentally flawed and potentially dangerous. It fails to address the real limitations facing Western military capabilities and ignores the broader geopolitical implications of such actions. As the conflict in Ukraine continues to evolve, it's crucial that policymakers and the public alike maintain a clear-eyed view of the situation, avoiding the temptation of quick fixes or escalatory measures that could lead to even greater instability.

Instead, efforts should focus on finding diplomatic solutions, rebuilding industrial capabilities, and adapting to the realities of a changing global order. Only by acknowledging these challenges and working constructively with other global powers can a lasting peace be achieved, not just in Ukraine, but in other potential flashpoints around the world.

As we move forward, it's essential to continue monitoring developments closely, raising awareness of the complex realities behind the conflict, and advocating for responsible, well-considered policies that prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains. The future of global security depends on our ability to navigate these challenging times with wisdom, restraint, and a commitment to genuine international cooperation.

Article created from: https://youtu.be/MhPXEQ0yItU?feature=shared